RCMP RESPONSE:
1998
Lost/Missing = 2,219
Stolen = 3,613
Recovered = 1,350
1999
Lost/Missing = 2,166
Stolen = 3,378
Recovered = 1,622
2000
Lost/Missing = 1,122
Stolen = 2,733
Recovered = 1,889
2001
Lost/Missing = 932
Stolen = 2,706
Recovered = 1,379
2002
Lost/Missing = 858
Stolen = 4,090
Recovered = 1,879
6 comments:
Gee... if there weren't any guns to lose or be stolen, we may not have 4000 guns on the street in 2002 - regardless of the trickle coming over the border.
It's just too easy for local punks to break into a house and steal firearms. Especially in small town Canada.
Break and enters tend to target:
1) Cash/jewelery/valuables
2) Liquor & drugs
3) Firearms
4) Electronics
Gee . . . following your logic westerngrit . . . if there wern't any criminals there wouldn't be a gun problem . . . right!!!
I forget who said it . . . but an armed society is a polite society.
Haven't seen to many punks here with guns, but, we certainly have many gangs . . . many ethnics . . . who shoot each other daily over drugs and money. Hey, maybe if we just banned money . . . all this would end!!!
Lefties have simplistic minds, some of the most peaceful countries in the world have citizens that are well-armed. eg. Switzerland.
Actually, as a notional lefty I should disagree with oldschool but don't. Lots of places have wide open gun laws and little crime (as you note the Swiss)whereas other places (e.g. the UK) have very strict gun laws and real gun problems. The issue is behavior and ensuring that people have the respect, and self-respect, to obey the law. Looking at the situation in North Montreal I am not very positive about how we are going here. But that's another posting ...
The Swiss may be "allowed" to bear firearms, but don't have a love affair with them, as is the case in "gun-glory" America (and the related trickle-over into Canada via the media). Have you been to Switzerland? There ain't no gun shop on every corner - and the KEY - licensing is very difficult (the NRA would scream if they had to obtain guns over there). Certainly no "drive-thru liquor and gun shops". I speak from experience, as I owned a drive-through liquor store in North Dakota.
As far as "you lefties" being so simple, me-thinks you have that all wrong, my friend. Remember, we're the one's who debate something to death because we want to go over every possibility and every aspect (at least that's what you guys say). The righties are the reactionary ones (yes, right wing politics is labeled reactionary), wanting to "send in the troops" whenever you have a chance. No guts, no glory, etc.
You quite adeptly changed the subject, but your argument holds not water. The fact is, if there were no guns to steal, there would be much less out there. I'm not saying that should be done, as my comment was simply laying out the opposite opinion of what some on here have commented...
I lived in small town Sask, and I recall several break-ins in a village of 250 people - and guns were taken every time. Locals blamed "the Indians" (yeah, the not-so-veiled racism was everywhere), even though the RCMP found that several of the break-ins were by "hard-working" folk who just happened to decide to rob several stores in the area (armed robbery, actually).
Extremes of gun culture are highlighted in the USA, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Sure behavior is a huge part of it, and that is the culture of the land where the gun is glorified (there is an African nation with an AK47 on their flag!).
Making the "if there weren't any criminals..." statement is NOT following my logic, because criminality is a social problem, and not a simple killing tool that can be tossed away. Yes, at an extreme level, is there really a need for guns for anyone but the police? Sport? Pleasure shooting? Not as much a necessity as everyday transportation, is it?
If you think Americans are more polite than Canadians, even the Yanks would disagree with you. If anything, a society as an armed camp results in a culture of fear, hatred, and distrust... None of which are any good for civil discourse.
I spend a lot of time in the UK, and they don't have a gun problem at all. As a matter of fact, their biggest problem is knives... It's all over their news. The knife issue is huge. The only "good thing" about it is that far less people have died from the knife attacks than shootings in the US. Typically, in the shootings someone dies. In a knife attack, the victim usually chooses not to run, and is rarely killed. Big difference.
Our moderate system of gun control is a pretty happy medium. More control is needed, while ensuring that people like First Nations can maintain their rights to hunt their lands... We're still far better off than the US: Gun crime per capita (per 100000 people) is more than 10 times LESS here than in the US. Look it up. We're a better society DUE TO our better controls AND our friendlier dispositions - however, it the friendlier dispositions may have more to do with the fact that you can drive all over Canada without having to look at signs (right in cities) saying "trespassers will be shot".
I don't care if it has been a while since WesternGrit posted, i'm going to follow up on it anyways and hope he gets the message. The statement that someone typically dies in a shooting is just wrong. Most shootings are not lethal. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative. If you're going to debate, make sure you have your facts straight.
Now to address the need for firearms. You asked why anyone but the police would need them and I'll tell you why. If someone breaks into my house with the intent to do me or my family bodily harm, I can't just politely ask them to delay their crime until the authorities arrive.
If the bad guys are wolves, you sir/ma'am are a sheep. That is your choice and your right. I choose to be a sheep dog. That is my choice, and thankfully, my right.
You mentioned that the UK has a knife problem. Do you not see the correlation here? Do away with guns, knives become the problem. The next logical step in your mind, then, would be to do away with knives. Then slingshots will become the issue. Common sense says if we take away one thing, criminals will find the next best thing to take advantage of an unarmed citizen.
Instead of trying to eliminate the tools to do harm or commit crime (which is an exercise in futility), why don't we try to eliminate the motivation to do harm or commit crime. Why would I not want to knock over a convenience store if one outcome is I walk away with a load of money and the other is I get a vacation in a 2 star hotel, room and board paid for by the tax payers.
You are correct that guns may not be as necessary as cars but are fast cars necessary? People are killed from excessive speed all the time. Do we outlaw sports cars? People die from drunk driving. Do we outlaw alcohol? You see, it's the behavior that becomes illegal, not the tool used in the behavior.
Nbendel: I should have said that we're talking about deaths from firearms, and my argument is (quite clearly) that people are more likely to die if shot vs. stabbed. Also, while there is a "knife problem" in Britain, it's not NEARLY the "gun problem" that exists in the USA. Also, you don't hear about someone "going postal" with a knife and murdering dozens of co-workers, or co-students, or "accidentally stabbing their friend or spouse" while cleaning their knife. Can't recall the last media report of a "hunting accident" with a knife either. The "illegal knife" trade isn't an elicit money-maker either (like guns or drugs - or "guns for drugs" as is commonly the case in the USA and elsewhere).
As far as untrained civilians taking the law into their own hands, that just takes the whole idea of "civil" out of it (as in civilized). We are a civilized society, and we like to believe that we're past the days of animal barbarism. Tit for tat barbarism is not civilized.
You mention someone breaking into your home and threatening your family. Firstly, with stronger gun laws and control, there would be far fewer guns out there for the would-be criminals to get their hands on to use. Secondly, when was the last time you heard of a home invasion in Canada that wasn't drug related (ie, criminals breaking into criminals' homes)? Answer: Rarely, if EVER. Even when one incident happens, it becomes national news, and even then, it is criminals on criminal violence: someone breaking into a home where there is drug money, guns, or a grow-op.
Your arguments are growing old and dying... You talk about my points and the "facts". I pull data from the Stats Can website (ie: lower crime and murder rates, etc.). I lucked out by having a well-published, top Criminology prof in college.
A modern cosmopolitan society operates because it has order, but also because it LACKS (or certainly has less of) certain things that more "earthy" societies have: namely the love of warring, violence, and "me first" attitude...
Post a Comment