Crime Control versus Gun Control (parade, illegal, drug, activist)

[rifleman]

I saw this just in from my old hometown, once a bastion of freedom and peaceful co-existance:

Gun crime in Metro Vancouver highest per capita in Canada

The influence of rampant drug culture in B.C. (The Canuck government is considering legalizing it, which may put a damper on the illegal side of this thriving business, which outranks their once-powerful lumber industry).

You can buy the seeds online, no problems!

Marijuana Seeds, Buy Cannabis Seeds Online (http://www.bcseedking.com/ - broken link)

Meanwhile, societal crimes, especially high in property crimes (B&Es, car theft), which the RCMP say is driven by the need for money to support the perp's "habits", have run off scale, and murder is spectacularly high; the highest in Canada with 45.5 per 100,000; far, far higher than, say, Washington. D.C. or nearby Seattle today.

And yet, Vancouver suffers, if you will, under some of the most vigorous gun control legislation in the world, with ownership of assualt rifles, even the semi-auto ones) illegal (full auto? don't even think about it. They'll know and come for you...); handguns having been registered in Canada for, literally, decades, and there's even a requirement that air rifles with a muzzle velocity of >500 fps be registered. (your Dad's Daisy Red Ryder BB gun, a key element in drug gang violence to be sure...).

The overall stats from the Vancouver Police & RCMP (the Canadian version of The FBI):

Police Services - Publications - Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General General

For the USofA, this summary:

"Crime rates in the U.S. are now similar to those of other developed countries. Nonetheless, many developing countries have significantly higher rates of homicide and in some cases, firearm usage in homicides, including Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, Guatemala, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, Estonia, and Russia.


Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties. In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000. Rates of gun-related homicides are greatest in southern and western states."

Note those extravagent rates in countries with truly Draconian gun legislation. I also just heard this morning about the Dutchman who killed 4 with his car, presumably because access to a gun is limited there. So, intent on murder anyways, he used the next best thing, probably even more effective because it's sorta hard to stop a charging Nissan...
"Car hits crowd watching Dutch queen, kills 4

Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago
APELDOORN, Netherlands – A Dutch driver careened through police barriers and plowed into a crowd of merrymakers cheering and waving at their popular queen on Thursday, in a premeditated assault that killed four people and injured 13 others, authorities said.

The speeding car, already dented apparently from catapulting bystanders into the air, passed within a few meters of the open-topped bus carrying Queen Beatrix and her family down a parade route, then smashed into a stone monument.

"I think that it has become clear that this happened with premeditation," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said.

Neither he nor law enforcement agencies would give a motive. But Dutch media, citing neighbors, said the assailant recently was fired from his job and was to be evicted from his home. Police identified him as a 38-year-old Dutch man with no history of mental illness or police record, but they would not release his name."

So wassup, my brothers? What can we reasonably conclude about the value of ever-more-restrictive gun legislation, which our Administration is formulating in the wings as we sit here and talk quietly about it?

[tablemtn]

The thing is, though, if the MVRD had the same homicide rate of New Orleans, it would see approximately 1,232 murders per year, which is more than double the entire annual number of homicides in the whole of Canada at the moment.

Count your blessings...

[tablemtn]

My theory has always been that gun control legislation in any given area is mostly irrelevant to that area's crime rate; social factors will tend to predominate.

[Cliffie]

You have to ask whether the Draconian gun laws, as you call them, are because of the crime rate or the other way around. Gun crimes go up where there's a drug problem, and it sounds like your old home town is in the middle of a typical turf war between crime bosses. Maybe you should ask whether the gun laws can really hope to affect the drug trafficking.

[texdav]

My theroy is that elected officals have other places they want to spend the money ;So they look to inanimate objects to blame because they fear actually enforce the laws and the overall cost.We see this all the time in civil cases where the cost verus going to trail makes many decisions.Basically politicans seem to believe if they pass a law that solves the problem.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

My theory has always been that gun control legislation in any given area is mostly irrelevant to that area's crime rate; social factors will tend to predominate.

Exactly.
The only think a gun law can do is effect the law abiding citizens ability to buy or own a gun.

The thing is, its a simple thing to see that the highest crime is most often in a place with the tightest gun laws. Wether that is a result of the crime or the crime rate is a result of gun control doesn't really matter.
What matters is the obvious fact that gun control laws do nothing to deter criminal activity, thereby failing in their purpose. Since they obviously do not deter or prevent crime they represent a totally unjustifiable restriction on the population that likely costs innocent lives.

[elamigo]

I have made research on the subject and I have seen so much data on both sides of the issue. In some cases the same cases the same data is used to support their side! Data can be interpreted in so many different ways and also some data collection is done with bias in mind.

When I address the issue with other people I give the following example:

I you were a thief and like to go into homes to burglarize, would you like for homeowners to have a gun? If no, why not?

If you were a thief and your city changed the law to allow people to buy and own guns for home protection and you saw in the news people buying guns, would you feel the same now when wanting to go into a home to burglurize? What are the odds of you going into a home now?

To me odds change in my favor as far as I am concerned.

You have a great day.
El Amigo

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Cliffie

You have to ask whether the Draconian gun laws, as you call them, are because of the crime rate or the other way around. Gun crimes go up where there's a drug problem, and it sounds like your old home town is in the middle of a typical turf war between crime bosses. Maybe you should ask whether the gun laws can really hope to affect the drug trafficking.

I do know that additional (and now proposed) gun laws in Canada will have a negative effect on increasing crime. Why? Because, so far you can still defend yourself with your legally-owned firearm in your home in Canada. The thrust of excessively liberal gun legislation in Canada, owever, is still to, as in England, finally eliminate private ownership of guns. Then all will be safe and well!

When I lived there, growing up in Canada until about 1981, you could (I did!) actually buy and own an assault rifle. Crime rates were significantly lower than now. Break-ins? Home invasions? Property crimes? Almost unheard of, except in the most problematic parts of town.

What has changed?

1: gun laws

2. drug use and drug gang organization

3. ineffectiveness of activist liberal judges and sentencing

4. Recidivism rates (re-doing "the crime", but, now, "absent the time"...)

5. gang participation and recruiting

6. lax societal values

7. seeking an "easy answer" through nonsense legislation

The Asian drug gangs could give a hoot about private ownership of guns, other than their seeing them as a possible source of new guns to steal (if the owners are stupid enough to not store them in a safe...). Of course, since it is often full-auto assault weapons you hear of in Canada recently, it's certainly not your grampa's old Browning Grade VI Auto 5 with gold embellishments that he used for over 60 years to hunt an occasional duck, that they are after.

Empty non-deliverable promises of safety often accompany all new gun legislation. When that doesn't work (for obvious reasons) the legislators then seek to make the laws even more Draconian. That part's never-ending, until, finally, they have you by the true short-and-curlies, and yet the crime continues. Or increases. Then what? Martial law? Mr. Orwell's interesting alternatives?

[GregW]

Government control of private weapons is a complete absurdity based on the perceived need to keep dangerous weapons out of the hand of poor people. Gun control is the basis of political control. Privately owned weapons can equally well be used against home invasion by thieves or by government police. Gun control is primarily devised to minimize the possibility of a successful revolution as well as forcing the population to be dependant on the police for their individual protection. There is some gun control based on the premise that a thief should not be risking his life in a break-in or robbery. After all these are not capital crimes so the invaders should not be at risk of death.

I believe the government has about as much right to restrict my access to weapons as it does to restrict my access to communications like books, newspapers and TV. I object to the restrictions on full auto weapons in the 1934 act. I do not care if the gangs are armed with Tommy guns as long as the police and I are as well. In our current situation the gangs and the police are better armed than the civilians and I do not think that is very good for anyone’s freedom or security. In many ways the gangs and the police are symbiotic and justify each other’s existence. They certainly do not seem to be attacking each other very much.

So long as we have home invaders and tyrannical police departments we need to have a well armed and well trained civilian population. This is necessary for our own individual protection and for the protection of our Republic from internal subversion.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[Cliffie]

Originally Posted by rifleman

The thrust of excessively liberal gun legislation in Canada, owever, is still to, as in England, finally eliminate private ownership of guns.

I really wonder when the word "liberal" started to mean "restrictive" in so many people's vocabularies. Probably about the same time "virtual" started to mean "fake."