Thread: Toronto Gun Violence Controversy

I dont know, I can only speak from my experiences in the UK which (I think) has similar gun control to Canada. The inner city area of the City I live closest to (Birmingham, UK) has a large black contingency. On the early hours of 2nd Jan 2003, two black girls were caught in a crossfire between two rival gangs and both died of their injuries.

Now these girls were not honour roll (or our equivalent) and came from a poor background but the front page of every newspaper was devoted to their killings and one of the biggest police manhunts ever in Birmingham saw the convictions of five men (one a brother of one of the dead girls) a year later. I know this is not canada and so not directly comparable but I was glad to see the positive response irrelevant of class and colour.

What I was not so pleased about was the vilification of guns (again) and the subequent arguments over the gun laws. Now I have a marksman certificate knocking around somewhere but I do agree with the strict gun laws in the UK. However, I thought that most of the press/people concentrated on the legislation and guns themselves rather than how they get into the hands of people who will use them and how we can stop that which of course is the proper issue. The blame in the monochrome media was assigned as being to do with rap music gun culture; failing to realise that if it wasn't music that it would be something else and the cause is more deep rooted than the superficial noise emitted by peoples stereos or the difficulty involved in getting a certificate to say you can own a gun.

Sounds like the only people who have guns are the criminals. Maybe it's time to arm the innocent people also, so they can protect theirselves.

Originally Posted by Rob

Sounds like the only people who have guns are the criminals. Maybe it's time to arm the innocent people also, so they can protect theirselves.

That is the thinking that got the world into trouble. Instead arming everybody, how about taking the guns out of the hands of everyone... But it is not the goverment's interest to do that, so people getting killed everyday...

I just want to add that I am sure the race of the girl along with the nearness to Christmas had a lot to do with it. But so what, sometimes the ends do justify the means. The response is what really matters people have to stop pointing back and forth and monitor their own homes. If my son joined a gang I would kick his butt from one side on NYC to the other. The problems start in the home, clean up that problem and you will find that most (not all) of this violence will end.

Living in NYC I can't agree with arming the people. Have you ever ridden on a NYC subway? There would be more shootouts then in the old west. I know myself there are many times if I had a gun someone would be soil sleeping.
Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by superfly

That is the (USA) thinking that got the world into trouble. Instead arming everybody, how about taking the guns out of the hands of everyone... But it is not the goverment's interest to do that, so people getting killed everyday...

How do you do that? If it wasn't guns, it would be knives, if not knives, it would be clubs, if not clubs, then rocks. It's been that way throughout history. The people that are better armed are going to win. So by outlawing guns, you've made law abiding citizens victims. It's not a perfect solution, no. But no one has come up with a viable solution either. Gun laws have not worked in the past. I could look up and qoute all kinds of statistics, but you can look up those also.

This is in no way meant to start an arguement, but a friendly discussion.

As long as this remains a friendly discussion I'm happy to be involved.

Two things - joesixpack mentions about the thugs poor marksmanship. Why end it at thugs? Most peoples marksmanship is poor when they are untrained especially if they are being shot at. If that girl or her mother or some security guard had started firing back then the collateral damage could have been far worse.

Both sides can quote statistics that back up their point of view. Heres one - It only takes one bullet to change an "innocent" (whatever that means, we're all guilty of something) person into a guilty person. Removing the bullet from the equation seems logical to me as humans do not behave rationally all [most] of the time. Also, its not the same as knives or whatever as theres rarely innocent bystanders in a knife fight.

Originally Posted by Rob

How do you do that? If it wasn't guns, it would be knives, if not knives, it would be clubs, if not clubs, then rocks. It's been that way throughout history. The people that are better armed are going to win. So by outlawing guns, you've made law abiding citizens victims. It's not a perfect solution, no. But no one has come up with a viable solution either. Gun laws have not worked in the past. I could look up and qoute all kinds of statistics, but you can look up those also.

This is in no way meant to start an arguement, but a friendly discussion.

What i ment was that handguns are way too fast on the trigger and short tempered people can make damage in split second. Also, you can't run away in front of the bullet, but there is greater chance that the injury from knife, club, rock won't be deadly one... The folowing statistics shows there are too many handguns (or people who don't deserve to own them) in the States...:

Handgun related deaths:

1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled)
* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:

* 17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
* and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

I am very sorry to hear this and similar stories showing that human life has little value for some people...

Nenad

Statistics are what the originater wants them to be... People often reflect on selective statistics to validate their own agenda. That is simply not accurate nor fair for either side of the "gun issue" to do becuse it completly negates the real issues at hand; social issues.

I've allways said, and I still feel that the day a firearm of any kind knowlingly and willfully commits a murder on its own, with out a human behind it.. then and only then I'll give up my guns. Firearms are nothing, just chunks of steel with no life of their own... it takes a human to kill. Thus it is the current value of human life that's the issue not presence or absence of firearms.

I am a holder of a CCW, a couple in fact.. (I can legally carry a firearm in 30 states). If we are going to play the statistics game, I'll reflect on the statistics that show a corresponding effect on violent crime when more civilians are trained, licensed and allowed to carry a handgung:
Florida started the CCW craze in 1987, at that time Floridians were about 36 percent more likely to be murdered than other Americans. After the libral CCW law was enacted the Florida murder rate was equal to or slightly less than the national rate.

In California, counties that issue concealed-carry permits liberally had lower violent-crime rates than counties with restrictive policies; restrictive counties had lower rates than counties with prohibitive policies.
A comprehensive study by University of Chicago law professor John Lott and graduate student David Mustard examining crime data for 3,054 counties found that while concealed-carry reform had little effect in rural counties, in urban counties it was followed by a substantial reduction in homicide and other violent crimes such as robbery. At the same time, there was a statistically significant rise in non-confrontational property crimes, such as larceny and car theft. Apparently many criminals concluded that the risks of encountering a victim who could fight back had become too high.

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.

Compairing the US murder rate to other countries is not even an effective retort. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns. Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Alas, guns are NOT the issue... They are an easy scape goat and a popular "band wagon" to ride. It's too easy to negate the real social issues such as pverty Vs wealth distribution and just blame the gun. How do you hold an inanimate object responsable when you cant claim "the gun made me do it" as a defense?

Nenad,

Thanks for clarifying that. I hate when the USA gets poked at with generalities. It is like blaming poor people for all the crime, we have a few rich thieves too!

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