I would want the police to protect me, and my property. I would not want to be responsible to defend myself with a gun at my hip in the streets. Get real. So the TO cops made a few mistakes. Big deal! I would like to know though, where these thugs got the moolah to travel to Toronto in the first place. Probably robbing ATM's or their parents gave them the cash for a "little tour of TO". They sure didn't look as though they ever held a job, or would care about finding a job. These are Canada's little "muggers".
Need we arm Canada?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Excuse me? You're saying there are no laws such as vandalism, creating public nuisance, destruction of public property, destruction of private property, etc.? Machjo, I think you are losing it.
Cops in Canada do not shoot to maim. They do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop.
Right.
And really really funny. lol
Good idea.
Right again.
So perhaps the cops should just start handing out baseball bats and referee in case something gets out of hand.
Oh wait. Why do we need cops in the first place then?
Definitely. Every single one of them is a homicidal maniac as soon as they get their hands on a taser. :roll:
No we don't. When was the last time we had a mass shootout in Canada between hundreds of armed citizens? Try not to exaggerate the occasional gun battle between drug gangs as a normal everyday occurrence in Canada, because it isn't. Canada is not Mexico.
What? You sound like you don't think so.8O
How many cops get to use deadly force in any given year? Not very many I expect, but a percentage of them will use more force than necessary just because they can.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that as long as the vandals aren't hurting people, they can destroy property to their heart's content and the police are powerless to stop it if they are outnumbered. If the police are outnumbered by the vandals, then the only way to stop the vandals while protecting their own safety would in fact be for the police to use more force to compensate for their numbers. unfortunately, since the law does not allow the police to use more force if people's safety is not threatened, the vandals therefor have free reign to do what they want. They're not stupid. They know the law and so exploit it to their advantage. They know they can destroy property with impunity and that as long as they are not threatening people, the police can only do so much. That's where we need to reform the law somewhat.
And what are they going to do against the off duty cops that vandalized Toronto and other protest rallies? Do you think you could write a law to stop that?
Who's doing the exaggerating, even Mexico doesn't have hundreds of armed citizens shooting it out. (BTW, private ownership of firearms is more restricted in mexico than in Canada, so it really works there, eh?). I don't need to exaggerate the gang battles here either, I live on a quiet upscale street in the burbs of Halifax, the same street as one of our most notorious drug dealing families, who have since moved out, (thankfully). Many of my neighbours are armed, including an 85 year old lady I know quite well who dubbed them "the gang who can't shoot straight", (I call them the "Sopranos lite"),but she can and has the trophies to prove it, No, shoot outs in our fair city are not a daily occuarance, monthly maybe, but on our street, we are prepared to shoot back, and we are law abiding citizens.
Okay.
The police do not protect you.....much less your property.
If you doubt that simple statement, I'd advise you to consult with David Brown of Caledonia (NP Story any of the victims of the Montreal Massacre..........(where the police waited outside while LePine's rampage went on...)
The fact of the matter is that police are taught one basic principle.....the most important thing is that they go home safe at the end of their shift. Full stop.
When I worked in the armoured car industry, we were told by a major city's police force that if we called for help:
1. They would not respond with normal police patrols, but only with the heavily armed Tactical Team.
2. The Tactical Team takes at least an hour to assemble.
3. The Tactical Team would "under no circumstances enter a hot zone"....in other words, they cordon off the area, wait to the shooting is over, then go in and tally up the bodies.
The only one responsible for your defense is you. And I am a firm believer that you should not be denied the means to defend yourself.
Mind you, I do not want a bunch of untrained yahoos toting pistols around.......but I have absolutely no problem with civilians that have no criminal record or history of mental disease, and who have passed a course by a qualified instructor that includes safety, law, and skill at arms (bucking for a carrer opportunity here!
)...I digress....I have no problem with such persons being licensed to carry handguns concealed.
It has worked extremely well in the USA............the murder rate has dropped 40 percent since the Americans first started letting their honest citizens carry guns anywhere......
The police do not protect you.....much less your property.
If you doubt that simple statement, I'd advise you to consult with David Brown of Caledonia (NP Story any of the victims of the Montreal Massacre..........(where the police waited outside while LePine's rampage went on...)
The fact of the matter is that police are taught one basic principle.....the most important thing is that they go home safe at the end of their shift. Full stop.
When I worked in the armoured car industry, we were told by a major city's police force that if we called for help:
1. They would not respond with normal police patrols, but only with the heavily armed Tactical Team.
2. The Tactical Team takes at least an hour to assemble.
3. The Tactical Team would "under no circumstances enter a hot zone"....in other words, they cordon off the area, wait to the shooting is over, then go in and tally up the bodies.
The only one responsible for your defense is you. And I am a firm believer that you should not be denied the means to defend yourself.
Mind you, I do not want a bunch of untrained yahoos toting pistols around.......but I have absolutely no problem with civilians that have no criminal record or history of mental disease, and who have passed a course by a qualified instructor that includes safety, law, and skill at arms (bucking for a carrer opportunity here!
)...I digress....I have no problem with such persons being licensed to carry handguns concealed.It has worked extremely well in the USA............the murder rate has dropped 40 percent since the Americans first started letting their honest citizens carry guns anywhere......
Last edited:
I like how your mind works.We are the only arm in space
Who's going to arm wrestle us eh? :|
But I fear that if we flex that arm, some more advanced species out there will take up the challenge and kick our butts.
Hmmm or maybe weare the only nation that can probe them :|
ummm err , theres always the other side of the issue
Hmmm or maybe weare the only nation that can probe them :|
ummm err , theres always the other side of the issue
I had thought of a prostate exam instead of nose picking but it didn't sound much like fun. (I hate those things!)
I think so. I can't relate to most humans. What they think is important and sacred is foreign to me. I think I was either abandoned here by mistake or I have been sentenced to this insane asylum for something I did on my home world. I get the impression that the Earth is either a prison planet or an insane asylum for the Universe.are you an Alien?
Okay.
The police do not protect you.....much less your property.
If you doubt that simple statement, I'd advise you to consult with David Brown of Caledonia (NP Story any of the victims of the Montreal Massacre..........(where the police waited outside while LePine's rampage went on...)
The fact of the matter is that police are taught one basic principle.....the most important thing is that they go home safe at the end of their shift. Full stop.
When I worked in the armoured car industry, we were told by a major city's police force that if we called for help:
1. They would not respond with normal police patrols, but only with the heavily armed Tactical Team.
2. The Tactical Team takes at least an hour to assemble.
3. The Tactical Team would "under no circumstances enter a hot zone"....in other words, they cordon off the area, wait to the shooting is over, then go in and tally up the bodies.
The only one responsible for your defense is you. And I am a firm believer that you should not be denied the means to defend yourself.
Mind you, I do not want a bunch of untrained yahoos toting pistols around.......but I have absolutely no problem with civilians that have no criminal record or history of mental disease, and who have passed a course by a qualified instructor that includes safety, law, and skill at arms (bucking for a carrer opportunity here!
It has worked extremely well in the USA............the murder rate has dropped 40 percent since the Americans first started letting their honest citizens carry guns anywhere......
I'm all for what you say Colpie, but there is also a flaw in your argument. Most people don't go to university with a pistol on them. Even if it were legal, many likely still wouldn't do it for simple cultural reasons. This is where I think compulsory martial arts instruction starting at the age of five for 9 years (or if people think that too early, then maybe starting at the age of 8 for 6 years or what have you) would ensure they at least have something to fall on. Sure it's not the ideal when a masked gunman is rampaging through a school, but it's still better than nothing if a person does have the chance to catch the gunman off guard for a moment and can sneak up behind him. Even if it means 9 lives lost instead of 10, it would still have proven worthwhile.
Again, I realize that since different students have different levels of interest in martial arts as well as different levels of motivation and health and fitness, we'd need to be flexible on what is taught. But hey, even a simplified form of tai chi chuan would still be better than nothing, even if only as an introductory martial art to whet the student's appetite for martial arts, possibly leading him to go on to more complete martial arts later as a result.
Again, I'm all for what you say, but I think that alone is not enough. Even if the law allowed for firearms possession, culturally many might still not want one for various reasons.