Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

[todd]

I'm reasonably sure I woulnd't consider (only) 40 months in prison appropriate if I was in similar circumstances.

todd

[Han]

jo4hn wrote in news:z- SdnUN_vqBDiqXUnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

I don't think you can win a farting contest with a pig or a cow. If you could, I wouldn't know what to call you .

[Morris Dovey]

Instead of j4 it might be C4. :)

[Mark & Juanita]

Oh, that is just soooo much better. I'm sure anybody who has protected themselves from attack (or will protect themselves from attack) will be glad to hear that saving oneself will only result in 40 months in jail.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

Why, how can this be? Canada has very strict gun control laws and requires all handguns to be licensed and issues permits for carry under only very rare circumstances.

In fair turnabout, do you have some supporting data for that assertion?

That reflects a very limited knowledge of life here.

[Charlie Groh]

...hahahaha, yup, but being from SoCal I wouldn't know for sure. What I *do* know for sure is that by far most of the gun crimes are a result of gang activity, at least in this area. People with unlicensed/stolen weapons are the ones that *use* them on others, *so* not the legal owners, as I am. Unfortunately it's far too late in this country to put the toothpaste back in the tube...to take away our "legal" weapons would open a pandora's box of crime perpetrated by the elements who have the "illegal" weapons...piles and piles of 'em.

Just my .02

cg

>

[Mike Marlow]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:48:16 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

I simply responded to the fanatical statement about warring citizens if guns were more commonplace.

You have an interesting definition of stressed. I'm not surprised at it though. I've watched your comments in enough of these off topic diatribes here to realize you are much like Lew in that both of you delight in darting conversations off to the side with irrelevant red herrings, and then you try to turn the focus back on those who catch you at your game. My guess is that is really quite stressful for you. It's really quite evident in the manner in which you quickly resort to the ad-hominem tactics.

Maybe you have a temper that is more out of control than the majority of the people around you, and that causes you to see everyone else through your own eyes. The reality is that people already do own guns, they already do experience the stresses, anguishes and turmoils of life, and they do not go for those guns as a coping mechanism. The argument that they may is what does not make any sense.

What constitues "a fair amount", and what are the references for this?

The last statement is the most accurate one you've made in this thread.

[Upscale]

Yes, I can do that. It will take me a little time to find the news articles, but from memory one shooting was a guy who took a bullet in head that was meant for a bouncer who ejected a patron from a bar/strip club. The owner of the gun was licensed to own the gun for target shooting. He was not licensed to carry.

The second that comes to mind was a woman standing outside a club so she could smoke a cigarette and took a bullet from some guy who decided to spray the entrance to a club after he was ejected.

I've got a few more in mind, but I'll have to read up on the details a little more.

And a question for you. Will three recent examples suffice? And when I do post the supporting data for assertion, what will it gain? Will you suddenly admit to being in error in this discussion or will the information just be depicted as some unusual anomaly?

[Upscale]

A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.

[todd]

those were the result of non-criminals carrying weapons who just got into an altercation? To be fair, I was able to count one for sure and perhaps a second. While tragic, it doesn't seem to warrant the level of fear you seem to have.

todd

[MikeWhy]

I stopped reading after the first link. Here's a real juicy quote from that, and gives it real credibility:

"The percentage of students who reported experience with gun violence was low in both Torontoand Montreal, both as victims (7.1% vs. 4.7%) and as aggressors (3.0% vs. 2.5%)."

One in 14 Toronto students are victims of gun violence?

What a rabid bunch of nut jobs. If that truly is the case, the problem is already out of control. But I'd bet that it's not, and it's only the gun-phobes allowing themselves to spin out of control. They barely, demonstrably had a tenuous grasp of reality as it was.

[Mark & Juanita]

Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day".

The only documented case here was someone paralyzed during a "gangland hit". That's not your average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day as you had previously asserted.

Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day. These were two people bent on mayhem.

incendiary writing employed by the reporters. It appears that someone is attempting to sway public opinion to support yet more gun control measures (as in they won't be happy until all law-abiding citizens are disarmed). My guess is that there are few or no reports when those law abiding citizens deter or stop a crime because they are armed. Or, it gets relegated to a back page story with an obligatory quote from a police officer that they don't encourage citizens to arm themselves for protection.

some detail belie your assertion that this was the result of "law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day". Significant number either gang or drug-related, others look like the result of a pre-meditated crime.

Especially like the picture of someone holding a gun up while wearing latex gloves -- it gives the impression that if one actually were to handle the gun bare-handed, all of the evil in the gun would seep into the person handling it. Again, this does not match your assertion that a "fair amount of these shootings are the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day." In fact, the article says just the opposite: "Last year's scourge of gun violence, which was capped off by the fatal shooting of Jane Creba, an innocent teen who was hit by a stray bullet in a gang shootout on Boxing Day while shopping in the Yonge-Dundas area, was largely the result of gang wars, police say. This fall's spate of shootings is a different beast, according to police, fuelled by drug deals gone bad and personal beefs between members of the same street gangs".

With the exception of one article, none of these articles point to your assertion that a fair amount of gun deaths are the result of the average citizen just deciding to carry a gun that day. Even in the case of the one article, there is no evidence that this is the only time that person was armed.

[Upscale]

Garbage. You make it sound like they went home, got the gun and came back. They were kicked out of the club and returned *minutes* later. They were average citizens out for a good time and decided to punish a bouncer for throwing them out. Result, an innocent person was shot down by a person who lost his temper.

Why don't you ask me how I know many of the intricate details? I live 300 yards from the Brass Rail. I've talked to a number of the staff who work there since I see many of them around the area on a frequent basis.

I live in downtown Toronto. I play there and I work there. I experience it every day. I know what goes on and am fully aware of the volatile nature of many people here. And, I'm certainly not paranoid about it, just fully realistic.

[Upscale]

I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof? The links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search. Assuming I spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will there be.

Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question* that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to say that they were out just to cause trouble.

I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need to? I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.

Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting incidents above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.

[Mark & Juanita]

Of the two links you cite above, only one really rises the the "normal citizen who decided to carry a gun that day" The case of the two men returning still falls under a pre-meditated act. We have had similar cases in the US where angry people return to a place from which they have been bounced in a vehicle traveling at high speed with the intent to run down the doorman and others.

What you've already provided shoots down your assertion, while a very small number of cases may occur (some of which, as stated above are simply because the gun was the closest tool), your links indicate that the largest number of such deaths are a result of getting caught in gangland or drug-related violence -- both of which will not be resolved by disarming regular citizens. As I asked before, for the small number of the other cases that appear to get a great deal of highly charged press, you are not informed of the many times when a law abiding citizen with a gun prevents violence to themselves or loved ones.

I'd much rather take my chances with being able to defend myself while have a vanishingly small chance of encountering something such as you describe than being made into an unarmed victim in a disarmed populace.

You people in Canada can do as you please -- gun control has really worked out well for Britain and also Australia where violent crime is up now that the criminals know the people are unable to defend themselves.

[DiggerOp]

"Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect"

"In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per

100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate."

[Upscale]

While the period of time necessary for pre-mediation to exist varies to a certain amount, leaving a bar angry and coming back within a few minutes doesn't fall into the pre-meditation category as far as I'm concerned. He was angry when he left and was still under the same cloud of anger when he came back and pulled the trigger. Nevertheless, it's obvious whatever I say or what proof I provide isn't going to change your mind.

That statement is meaningless. The reason why it happens so rarely up here is that the vast bulk of the general public don't own or have access to guns to use as a means of self defence. You might state that information of that type is kept from public knowledge so people don't get the idea of arming themselves, but you'd be wrong. I worked with Metro Police for a period and a close friend of mine, was a sergeant with them at the time. If that type of thing was happening, I'd have heard about it.

You live where you live and I live here. There's a number of reasons for my knowledge and experience here to be in excess of what you might believe to be true, but that's your choice. Believe what you like.

[Charlie Groh]

...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun) long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?

This is a great example of drugs (alcohal) and guns don't mix.

I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that particular molecule I marvel at the drinking culture...but not so much at how easy it is to lose control because of its influence...

cg

[Upscale]

Well, I'd have to agree with you, because nobody except the police are registered to carry weapons. The only other registration that goes on here is to own a gun and a permit to transport it to places like a gun club. And, it's even more difficult than ever to get those permits.

That's one point that I'm trying to get across. When you add alcohol to any situation, it usually exacerbates it. If the population at large has the right to bear arms and they're more guns around, what happens when alcohol is thrown into the mix?

Things *have* changed since the 70's, everywhere. There's an attitude of entitlement and "don't screw with me" that seems to be very pervasive. When I was a kid, a fight was using your fists and you might get the crap beat out of you, but you usually lived. It seems when there's a fight these days, someone always has a gun or a knife and a fight often results in someone dying. It's just not the same anymore and I feel for kids in school who have to deal with this shit day in and day out.

[Lew Hodgett]

I still remember Peter Ustinov's description of Toronto:

"New York as administered by the Swiss".

Quite a compliment about the clean and tidy way you find things in Toronto.

Lew