Thread: Toronto Gun Violence Controversy

Originally Posted by Kelly

Most of this data came from recent (2003) reports and the effects are still showing a decline in violent crime where civilians are trained and licensed to carry. The fact that violent crime has dropped in areas where CCW laws were lax has urged all 50 states to re-think their own laws and today only 4 states still have a "Right Denied" policy.

New Jersey, as far as I can see, is one of those states (that is, effectively, a "shall not issue" state). The only way one can obtain a carry permit here is to show a very, very high level of necessity - basically, either employment as an armored car driver or something similar, or a large price on your head. (That is, permits are restricted to "to persons specifically employed in security work . . . and to others who can establish an urgent necessity for carrying guns for self-protection").

According to some of the numbers I've seen, there are about 3000 CCW permits in the state, and most of those are granted to retired federal, state, and local law enforcement (for whom there is a "shall issue" policy, provided they requalify).

So... If you own a gun, don't carry it here! We also have some pretty stiff laws on carrying firearms, including the "Graves Act" that makes pointing a firearm a very serious offense.

-Keith

Yes, crime rates are high, but gun laws do not work, NY and DC have some of the harshest gun laws in the country, and have higher murder rates per capita. IMO, we need more harsher laws for violent criminals. The 3 strike and your out was a good start. But needs to be carried further. Harsher punishments, etc.

Guns dont kill people its true, but they do make it pretty easy. They're the point and click interface of the murder world.

No study, no statistic, no sensus has ever been able to validate the theory that "making it easy" to kill has any effect on weather or not people do kill.. the fact is, that the absence of firearms in other regions has little to no effect at all on the violent crime thats common for the given region.

The first step for me in stopping the criminals getting guns is to strictly control who has access to them.

Again, another step that is completly ineffective. Do most "criminals" go to the local retail outlet and make a legitimate purchase with ID and fingerprint cards? No.. not now and not when guns become more controled. If the "law" dosent desuade criminals from committing crimes now, how will making more laws have an impact on them?
Already, there are laws that will make a crime comitted with a firearm punishable by life in prision and we still have the "capitol murder" statute threatening the would be murder with their own life and those "laws" have no effect what so ever on murder rates, so how would making firearms more difficult to obtain by those who already do obey the law have any effect on the criminal?

"It would make for fewer guns in the home" you might say? Well no it won't becuase it wont effect the people who are already buying the guns by legitimate means. Just make it a greater expense.... I'll refer to the assult weapon ban for a study of how strict gun laws have no effect what so ever on those already intent on comitting the crime in the first place.

I will say that I think there should be national standard "class" resulting in a license or permit for those who would purchase a firearm. A "drivers ed" if you will for the firearms owner. This might have a slight effect on the "casual" person who would purchase a firearm but have no intention of learning how to use the damn thing. But I guarantee it would have NO effect on crime.

Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer

New Jersey, as far as I can see, is one of those states (that is, effectively, a "shall not issue" state). The only way one can obtain a carry permit here is to show a very, very high level of necessity - basically, either employment as an armored car driver or something similar, or a large price on your head. (That is, permits are restricted to "to persons specifically employed in security work . . . and to others who can establish an urgent necessity for carrying guns for self-protection").

According to some of the numbers I've seen, there are about 3000 CCW permits in the state, and most of those are granted to retired federal, state, and local law enforcement (for whom there is a "shall issue" policy, provided they requalify).

So... If you own a gun, don't carry it here! We also have some pretty stiff laws on carrying firearms, including the "Graves Act" that makes pointing a firearm a very serious offense.

-Keith

Jersey is a "May Issue" state, meaning they can and will provide the CCW providing the applicant can "show cause". It is one of the toughest states in the country to aquior a CCW (well aside from those who forbid the carry). I dont mean to pic on Your home state, but Jersey is a perfect example of how simply enacting more laws has little to no practical effect on violent crime.

Kelly, I'll give you one statistic that validates that it being "making it easy to kill" has an effect on whether someone is killed or not. The girl on page 1 of this thread. If it had been a knife or whatever then she would not have died. Noone has addressed my point that what would have happened if everyone was carrying in that mall?

Harsher sentencing is NOT a deterrent. Proper education and socialisation is how we minimise gun violence.

X

That incident dosent justify the theory in the least. How easy is it to blow up a federal building? Did that hinder or stop Timothy LeVey? What kind of "prohibitive" laws do we have reguarding explosives? Pretty damn strict! Now the only effect of such laws has been to add additional expensen on legitimate farmers who would use NH4NO3 for legitimate purposes.

Playing a game of "what if's" dosent do the issue justice... what if she opted to be 10' from the spot she was staning in when she was victomised? What if some one was staning in front of her? What if she went to the salaon before going to the mall... what if the shooter(s) were better shots? I mean really, we can "what if" our self into oblivion. We cant say that the fact that the specific firearm was produced and sold was the soul reason for her death. Dispite current liability legislation holding the manufactor liable when some one is murdered with their brand of firearm

The "what if everyone was armed' is just as foolish a "what if" scenerio. I will refer back to the crime rates in areas where civilians are more likely to be armed. Violent crime went down, and property crime went up. What does this show? That criminals do indeed value thier own life and would rather opt for an anonymous auto theft over confronting the possibility of facing some one that is actually trained with a firearm.

I hate the "what if" game because there is no valid answer to the many "what if" questions of the world... but to offer you a "direct answer" (since no one has directly addressed it) based on my own opnion:
The probability and known fact that there could be one or more people there trained and armed would have most likely caused the idiots to pick a less populated place for their "shoot out".
Coincidentally, the old "wild west" arument has been the main course for opponets of the CCW, and to this day there has not been a single "wild west" style shoot out between criminals, civilians and LEO's.
Its not an excuse to have a free for all shoot out like some seem to believe, its a deterrant that seems to actually work (where as the law obviously does not).

Originally Posted by Kelly

Jersey is a "May Issue" state, meaning they can and will provide the CCW providing the applicant can "show cause". It is one of the toughest states in the country to aquior a CCW (well aside from those who forbid the carry). I dont mean to pic on Your home state, but Jersey is a perfect example of how simply enacting more laws has little to no practical effect on violent crime.

Oh, I agree. The problem is that "May Issue" in New Jersey almost always falls on the side of not issuing, as the number of gun permits indicates. Yet Camden is, I believe, the most dangerous city in the US this year. Must be the close proximity to PA.

This is something I pick on my home state about, too.

-Keith

Originally Posted by max_incognito

Kelly, I'll give you one statistic that validates that it being "making it easy to kill" has an effect on whether someone is killed or not. The girl on page 1 of this thread. If it had been a knife or whatever then she would not have died. Noone has addressed my point that what would have happened if everyone was carrying in that mall?

"What if" is a dangerous game, Max. If everyone in that mall had been carrying, it is possible that there may have been more deaths. It is also possible that the malefactors would have been shot dead before they could harm the innocent girl. It is further possible that, as CCW advocates suggest, they would have not opened fire in a public place knowing members of the public were likely to be armed. If they were armed with knives, it is still possible the poor girl would have been trampeled by a panicky crowd or what have you.

I think the probable truth is that legal guns have only a minor effect, one way or another, on crime. However, my personal feeling (and I stress it is only a personal feeling) is that the government has no place telling law abiding citizens that it is improper for them to own guns.

-Keith

Thanks for your responses guys, however it would seem clear to me that getting caught in the crossfire at a knife fight would cause less collateral damage than a gun fight. Saying "its possible" is all well and good but theres a certain degree of probability involved here and the most likely outcome of a shootout in a mall is that someone would get caught up in it. Also, I cant understand the animosity toward the "what if" style questions, surely we have to speculate as the US cant ban guns or allow them simultaneously so if you have a standpoint on either side you necessarily have to speculate about the opposite scenario. Of course we haved to remember it is speculation, but that doesn't negate the whole debate as people seem to suggest.

However, I did say in my first post that the vilification of guns after the incident I mentioned annoyed me as the social aspect needs to be addressed. The discussion has moved into the usual gun-law territory and I have allowed myself to get sidetracked, for which I apologise. My main point was to debate Robs claim that the "innocent" should be armed.