Gun Crime... lock 'em up!
Dissonance & Disrespect has a good post on the new proposed gun laws... and some lefty has this to say in his comments...
"crime rates in this country have been declining. i suppose the rural vote, which rarely sees toronto, will be happy that gun crimes are tougher. it won't take a single gun off the streets"
So, I replied, "Right... so if crime rates have been declining, why are you getting all upity about gun crime in Toronto? According to your logic, it'll all just go away... eventually."
Anyway, they way I see it, you can take one of two approaches to gun crime... you can either try to take the guns away from the criminals, or you can lock the gun criminals away.
In approach number one, a gun gets taken away from a gun toter. He then talks to his gun running buddies to get another one, since he's back out on the street in no time, since he got a conditional sentance. However, since there are fewer guns around now becaues they've been "banned", the street price has gone up... therefore, he'll have to beat and rob a couple more old ladies before he can get a new piece.
However, using the second approach, he's not on the street to get humself a new piece... and the one the cops took away from him has been melted down already. The number of buyers for the remaining guns will drop sharply, because so-and-so heard about his buddy's cousin's brother who just went up the river for five whole years cause he got caught with a gun... and he decides the price isn't worth it, so he doesn't buy one himself.
THAT's how you get things done... not with airy-fairy promises to "ban guns", which are already restricted. (a true Liberal approach... promise something that's already in place, and make it look like a new idea)
So, if you really want to curb gun crime, call your local MP and ensure they support these new measures.
"crime rates in this country have been declining. i suppose the rural vote, which rarely sees toronto, will be happy that gun crimes are tougher. it won't take a single gun off the streets"
So, I replied, "Right... so if crime rates have been declining, why are you getting all upity about gun crime in Toronto? According to your logic, it'll all just go away... eventually."
Anyway, they way I see it, you can take one of two approaches to gun crime... you can either try to take the guns away from the criminals, or you can lock the gun criminals away.
In approach number one, a gun gets taken away from a gun toter. He then talks to his gun running buddies to get another one, since he's back out on the street in no time, since he got a conditional sentance. However, since there are fewer guns around now becaues they've been "banned", the street price has gone up... therefore, he'll have to beat and rob a couple more old ladies before he can get a new piece.
However, using the second approach, he's not on the street to get humself a new piece... and the one the cops took away from him has been melted down already. The number of buyers for the remaining guns will drop sharply, because so-and-so heard about his buddy's cousin's brother who just went up the river for five whole years cause he got caught with a gun... and he decides the price isn't worth it, so he doesn't buy one himself.
THAT's how you get things done... not with airy-fairy promises to "ban guns", which are already restricted. (a true Liberal approach... promise something that's already in place, and make it look like a new idea)
So, if you really want to curb gun crime, call your local MP and ensure they support these new measures.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 8:57 a.m.
14 Comments:
At Fri May 05, 09:53:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Couldn't the government do both? Control firearms AND punish criminal use of firearms, instead of an either/or approach?
At Fri May 05, 10:19:00 a.m. EDT,
Matt said…
We've tried to control firearms, and look where it left us - an emormous bureaucratic bungle that has clearly had no effect on gun crime. If you can suggest a way to control guns that DOES dramatically reduce crime (as opposed to the increase we've seen over 13 years) that also DOESN'T criminalize deer hunters, then I would be very interested to hear it.
At Fri May 05, 10:22:00 a.m. EDT,
Matt said…
I could be mistaken about this, but haven't the Tories either
a) already had a gun amnesty or
b) committed themselves to a handgun amnesty?
I know Toronto and Ottawa have had similar programs but I think I recall a federal Tory talking about it too...
At Fri May 05, 10:42:00 a.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
I agree that the registration program as created and implemented by the Liberals was a fiasco. No doubt there. But you still need to do something to control who has access to firearms as well, which is why I support some sort of registry and licensing program.
At Fri May 05, 11:01:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
This may be a bit of a moot point, and probably points to my own political sensibilities, but shouldn't we be pursuing the reasons why people are all of a sudden all bearing arms and shooting at each other in broad daylight? I mean I can think of at least one: drugs. In terms of criminal activity, any time there's a drug bust, someone is going to have to die. Its pretty simple. So, if we can get rid of the reasons for the gun violence (the large scale stuff) we might be able to solve a lot of the gun problems themselves.
Just my thoughts.
Heather Fitz
At Fri May 05, 11:20:00 a.m. EDT,
Matt said…
Heather: I agree, it seems to me that drug, gun, and gang crime are almost always somehow connected.
Blake: I would welcome some sort of initiative to license weapons, but I have yet to see an idea that I think would be even minimally effective.
At Fri May 05, 11:55:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Heather, Matt:
Too many people seem to think that they can solve the problem of gun violence in association with gangs and drugs by simply decriminalizing the drugs themselves.
As far as addressing the underlying issues of crime; prevention is important and the gov't has budgeted $20 million for at risk youth programs. However, while it is important to strive to prevent crime it is also important to punish the criminals who perpetrate the crimes.
To me whether manditory minimums are an effective deterant or not is almost irrelavent. Prison time is about punishment for wrong doing, hopefully prisoners can be reformed while there, but reformation is not the primary function of the penal system. It seems lately that crimals have more rights than victims. Justice for the victim has taken a backseat to "understanding" the criminal.
Whether tougher sentances deter criminals or not, one thing is certain. Criminals cannot re-offened when they are locked up. The right to saftey and security of law abidding citizens trumps the rights of the criminal. As it should.
At Fri May 05, 12:03:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Ryan,
You know I pondered this after my posting, and I believe that you and Matt are quite right. The solution must be an inclusive one. It can't be one thing without the other. Tougher sentences so that you know if you get caught you'll be in jail. Less chances to by the weapons that hurt so you won't end up doing the crime. And better alternatives for helping people find a purpose outside of the financial windfall of drug running.
Thanks for the reminder.
Heather Fitz
At Fri May 05, 01:00:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Anyway, they way I see it, you can take one of two approaches to gun crime... you can either try to take the guns away from the criminals, or you can lock the gun criminals away.
this is typical conservative tunnel vision. put bad guys in jail, bad guys go away. you actually identified the winning strategy to reduce gun crime in our urban centres. we must get guns off the streets AND lock up the punks who get caught using them. tough sentencing is great, i'm all for it, however, it isn't a deterrent. your strategy of simply locking up the bad guys without examining crime prevention strategies leads to full prisons but no reduction in crime.
At Fri May 05, 01:53:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"lock up the punks who get caught using them. tough sentencing is great, i'm all for it, however, it isn't a deterrent"
It isn't supposed to be, its supposed to be a punishment. Its supposed to provide justice for the innocent victims of crime. Its supposed to protect law abiding citizens from clearly violent individuals.
We live in a society that seeks to sherk all responsibilities from the individual. Ultimatley everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. Society didn't pull the trigger, and regardless of the negative experieces this individual has had throughout life he is still guitly and deserves punishment for his crime.
"your strategy of simply locking up the bad guys without examining crime prevention strategies leads to full prisons but no reduction in crime"
Prisons full of the guilty who deserve to be there.
Hiring 1000 new RCMP officers will prevent new guns from entering the country, and hopefully get existing guns off the streets before they can be used. Youth crime prevention programs will hopefully reach at risk youth before they make the bad decisions that will destroy their lives and the lives of others.
At Sun May 07, 06:41:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I have no problem with the death penalty for a proven and self confessed murderer like Moussoui who allowed thousands to be killed.
The New Testament proves Jesus accepted mans laws and his mission was for spiritual justice in heaven, not here on Earth.
I challenge any professed Christian to deny that Jesus allowed his capital punishment, even though he had the power to end all killing and bring Justice to the Earth for all Gods children.
Also, I challenge Christians to tell me that if they could go back in time to stop his death penalty on the cross, would you actually prevent any death penalty which meant no Messiah on the cross to atone us for the passage to peace and forgivness from our Father in heaven.
There are far too many Vaneer Christians that assume being in a Church every Sunday makes you a Christian.
If that was true , then living in a garage would make me a car .
Thou shalt not kill is different from the true meaning of
Thou shalt not MURDER.
Unless you believe the United 93 passemgers will go to hell for Murdering the hijacker killers, you can't have it both ways.
The 9/11 Muslims actually felt a dispensation from God to Murder civilians under the guise of Quranic teachings to slay the unbelievers where ever you find them.
The death penaly is not a religious issue as many leftists love to hijack for their cause, these are the same leftists that backed Stalin,Lenin, Mao,Hitler, and the USSR's socialists doctrine of equality.
The NDP rants about public dollars going to private clinics as a 2-tier system, but stays mute on abortions being funded at private Clinics with public money.
Stop trying to expect social justice and equality here on Earth,Jesus even pointed to the Oil and water not mixing as a example of the rich and poor, he also said we would always have the poor so give your spirit to god and give man their pound of flesh for justice and freedom under mans laws.
Those with eyes will see, and those with ears will hear, I now hear and see the truth because my feelings no longer guide me, few people can react on the truth, and that's why we have a Homeless Industry in Toronto because feelings are fueling the spending and not the truth which shows what's needed to be done as the best possible outcome with the least amount of harm for all people.
At Sun May 07, 06:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
And that's why we have and had the Rhwanda and Darfur slaughter going on , the UN and Peaceniks use Feelings to come up with a plan for a anger-management style resolution.
Aids didn't become a issue until it was NorthAmerica white males being killed by it, when black Africans were dieing our feelings siad that it's not or right to interfear in their internal Political issues.
The Saudis still publically behead about 50 people each year and Canada feels we shouldn't impose our values on other nations,the Taliban love this mind set by the West.
The Islamists and suicide bomber know we don't have the stomac to win a battle that requires blood and loss of lives , what a sad time in Canada for our seniors that will see the youth just lye down and surrender to Jihadists because they feel that violence is wrong . even against the Murders taking away your freedom.
That's so nice of them to be willing to take that risk with my life, we need more peaceniks and they should go to these Terrorist based Nations and Hug-A-Thug to save the World.
At Mon May 08, 03:23:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
I'm at a total loss as to how to respond to the idea that "since Jesus died for the redemptive purposes of God, therefore capital punishment must be applied in our criminal justice system". It has no place in a public policy discussion, non-Christians won't care at all about the point, and it makes zero sense.
Secondly, the distinction between "murder" and "kill" as you describe it is less clear in the Hebrew OT and Greek NT than it is in English.
Thirdly, I fail to see how objecting to working for social justice and goodness on earth is remotely Christian.
At Mon May 08, 03:24:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home