Ten Paces then DRAW!

[Colpy]

Now you're just being silly.

Funny you should mention Switzerland. You understand of course that every Swiss male between 18 an 45 years of age is required to keep an assault rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition readily available at home. Sorta shoots your argument right down, doesn't it?

The Americans kill each other more often with knives, fists, and kitchen implements than Canadians do with all weapons. The United States is simply a more violent society than Canada. Why I do not pretend to know. It is a cultural thing.

The availability of guns does not weigh into that. Look up the research by Garry Kleck. You'll like him. He is an ACLU member, a life-long Democrat, and a liberal to the core. He does not own a gun, and does not like guns. But he IS honest.

Look at Jamaica. Guns were basically prohibited in Jamaica in 1974. Possession of a single BULLET means a mandatory life sentence. As an island, importation of firearms illegally should not be easy.

The murder rate in Jamaica is over 30 per 100,000. That is 15 times our rate of 1.9 per 100,000 and 5 times the US rate of about 6 per 100,000.

It is a cultural thing.

Want to lower the gun murder rate in Toronto?

Quit importing Jamaicans.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Funny you should mention Switzerland. You understand of course that every Swiss male between 18 an 45 years of age is required to keep an assault rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition readily available at home. Sorta shoots your argument right down, doesn't it?

Every one of those guns is registered and the owner is trained by the government. They are not easily concealed. Kind of shoots a hole in your argument, doesn't it?

Want to lower the gun murder rate in Toronto?

Quit importing Jamaicans.

Ah, blatant racism. Forgot I was dealing with a reformer for a second.

 

[Andem]

Rev, that's hardly racist. It's true that the most dangerous places in Toronto are Jamaican. I'd never be caught dead at Jane&Finch myself... actually if I was ever caught there, it wouldn't be nice. The only racism we're talking about here is racism from Jamaicans. The numbers speak for themselves: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/jm/Crime

 

[Andem]

By the way... what I'm saying is that if you can't integrate the current lot into society, why make our cities more dangerous by letting more in? It makes no sense and I agree with Colpy's point.. it's common sense, really.

 

[Reverend Blair]

He isn't saying that a problem has to be addressed within a community, Andem. He is saying that we should quit "importing" all Jamaicans. That's racist in that treats all Jamaicans as a single sterotype, and it's racist in the inherent attempt to dehumanise Jamaicans by using a word (importing) used for material goods instead of people.

 

[Andem]

I agree that the word 'importing' is not a very good usage, but the general idea really isn't racist as it's an issue that (especially) the city of Toronto faces with an overload of non-integrated foreigners who come from a country much much different than our own. Anyways, I'm sure colpy meant it in a nicer way, but the amount of Jamaican foreigners in Toronto is truly overwhelming.

 

[Colpy]

Rev, I don't care if your skin is white, yellow, brown, black or a lovely shade of incandescent green.

What I do care about, if you come to live in my country, is what is in your head. You had best believe in individual rights, in multi-party democracy, in the rule of law, in equality of all people, amd you'd best leave your hatreds, your wars, your power struggles, and any cultural tendency toward violence back home.

Multiculturalism, or cultural relativism, is societal suicide (to paraphrase Mark Steyn) Western Christian civilization has created more wealth and granted more freedom than any other society in history. We are the absolute apex of human development, and I don't wish to see that destroyed because we have become so wishy-washy, so idiotically "tolerant" of everything, that we undercut our own standards.

As for the Swiss, do you really believe that registration prevents someone from murder? Or that government training does? Come on.

The Swiss own lots of handguns as well.

Yep, I am one of those arm everybody guys. And proud of it.

"Political power comes out of the muzzle of a rifle"
"An armed society can never be oppressed."....Mao Tse-tung (just before he disarmed the Chinese people )

Have you looked up Kleck yet?

 

[Colpy]

Actually the Rev is correct.

My jab at the Jamaican community was somewhat inappropriate. Jamaicans make up most of the victims as well.

I simply can't resist (on occassion) statements that I know will raise the Rev's blood pressure to outrageous levels. Sorry.

But there IS a problem within that community, it is cultural, and it needs to be dealt with.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I agree that the word 'importing' is not a very good usage, but the general idea really isn't racist as it's an issue that (especially) the city of Toronto faces with an overload of non-integrated foreigners who come from a country much much different than our own. Anyways, I'm sure colpy meant it in a nicer way, but the amount of Jamaican foreigners in Toronto is truly overwhelming.

Yeah, just like he meant the things he said about natives in a nicer way. I'm not buying it. Covert racism is still racism.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Reply with quote
Actually the Rev is correct.

My jab at the Jamaican community was somewhat inappropriate. Jamaicans make up most of the victims as well.

I simply can't resist (on occassion) statements that I know will raise the Rev's blood pressure to outrageous levels. Sorry.

So you admit to trolling?

 

[peapod]

I simply can't resist (on occassion) statements that I know will raise the Rev's blood pressure to outrageous levels. Sorry.


Sorry is not good enough! Since you are new here, its curious that you imply you know the rev :roll: That remark is goading and trying to incite the rev. Do not continue with this approach.

 

[Colpy]

What is trolling?

I don't pretend to believe things, if that is what you mean. I sometimes overstate to get a reaction, as in "quit importing Jamaicans".

Can we get back to the subject at hand?

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

I simply can't resist (on occassion) statements that I know will raise the Rev's blood pressure to outrageous levels. Sorry.

"Sorry"??? Not accepted, Colpy. It's exactly that kind of behaviour that causes all kinds of trouble around here. This will be your first and last warning on the issue ... purposely baiting ANY member of this forum will get you permanently banned.

If you don't know what "trolling" is, I suggest you spend a little time learning the etiquette of online forums. It would not only serve you well, but be a great relief to those of us who read your stuff.

Cosmo / Moderator

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Colpy]

Article published Friday, October 28, 2005, at The National Post .

Don't blame American guns

By John R. Lott Jr.

With Canada's murder rate rising 12% last year and this year's high-profile rash of gang murders (six shootings just this week in Toronto), politicians are looking for someone to blame. The bogeyman, as usual, is America: On Monday night, during his dinner with Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was being caused by weapons smuggled in from the United States.

But Paul 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.)

Mr. 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 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 in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% 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% 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%.

Outside of Canada and Europe, skepticism of gun-control laws' effectiveness is widespread. It was the major reason why Sunday's 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 United States 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 murder has fallen faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the United States 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% of American murders take place in just 3.5% 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 United States 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 Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago, 2000). "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery, 2003).

Visit the John Lott Jr. Page of Articles

 

[no1important]

Sheriff: Student suspected in shooting of three administrators

Exactly why gun control is a necessary evil. Sounds like a handgun as he slipped it under napkin before shooting. Why the hell does anyone need a handgun for anyways unless you are a police constable,in the military or security?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yeah Colpy, we should all take our advice from op-ed spin stories put out by the AEI. Are you going to post something spun out PNAC's twisted web next?

I notice that while the story blamed drugs, they stopped well short of calling for the decriminalisation of drugs. Funny how that works, isn't it? Oh, and there are statisics on US guns used in crimes in Canada...that runs about 50%. Maybe you should give it a Google. Better yet, maybe you can send the results back to the AEI and point out that their story wasn't accurate.

 

[Colpy]

Nobody here said they want no gun control. But what is enough?

If you read Lott's article, you will notice that the murder rate has gone up 12% in Canada, despite $2 Billion spent on the Firearms Act.

Here's a thought: any gun legislation that does not gain the approval of the vast majority of gun owners is a complete waste of time. They simply will not comply, as they have not complied with C-68. If it really pisses them off, shooters just decide to stay outside of the legal framework. This creates a pool of weapons outside any control.

Handguns are used for defense, target shooting, hunting(although not in Canada Eh, and competition.

Another though. IF a ban on handguns forced criminals to turn to other weapons, they would use sawed off long guns. Non-shooters often don't understand that ,on average, a shotgun is 10 times as likely to kill as a mid-powered handgun, and a rifle is about 5 times more likely to kill.

Want to raise the death toll? Remove every pistol from Canada, and let the crooks use sawed off shotguns.

Good idea. Not.

 

[Colpy]

Hey Rev.

I'd rather listen to some logic from the AEI than BS from our current government. Lott is a VERY credible researcher.

I saw an interview that pitted Lott (speaking about his book "More Guns, Less Crime") against Anne McLellan on the CBC. Annie's answer to his premise and statistics? and I quote....."Why that is counter-intuitive!"

Damn I can't stand that woman.

On one side we get solidly researched evidence......on the other Landslide Annie's intuition.

My other favourite quote from Annie?
When asked her OPINION "I don't know. I haven't consulted with the Prime Minister yet" No wonder she has been such a success in the Liberal cabinet.

But I digress.....

Rev, I will google the 50% thing, because I don't believe a word of it.

Have you looked at Kleck yet?

 

[no1important]

San Francisco Issues Spark Scant Interest

SAN FRANCISCO -- Proposals to ban handguns and prevent military recruiters from visiting schools would seem like surefire hits with voters in peace-loving San Francisco.

But days before Tuesday's election, two ballot measures dealing with these typically passion-provoking topics face uncertain fates. One would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition. The other would oppose _ in word only _ the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges.

Most political observers, Newsom included, think the measures will pass Tuesday, but they have sparked so little interest and debate that even the most seasoned pundits cannot say for sure.

Click above link for rest.

At least one area of US that has common sense. I see though the NRA is ready to sue tomorrow. :roll: I wish that NRA would go the way of the dodo.