Culture Or Gun Driven Or Perhaps Culture And Gun Driven?

[Guest]

Free ownership of guns or influence from generations who grew up admiring the actions portrayed in novels / films that made heroes out of "Real live / dead Bad Guys".

New study finds the U.S. has 31% of the world’s mass shootingsoAP Photo/Stephen B. Morton

- A A +

TORONTO — Despite having only five per cent of the world’s population, the United States was host to 31 per cent of public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012.

A new study used data from the New York City Police Department’s 2012 active shooter report and the FBI’s 2014 active shooter report, along with international sources, to provide a comprehensive look at mass shootings on a global scale. Incidents where there were four or more victims were taken into account.

“The United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia are ranked as the Top 5 countries in firearms owned per capita, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, and my study found that all five are ranked in the Top 15 countries in public mass shooters per capita,” said study author Adam Lankford, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama.

“That is not a coincidence.”

Lankford said there was a clear connection between high gun ownership rates in a country and mass shootings.

READ MORE: Getting Out Alive: Surviving a mass shooting

“My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nation’s civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters,” Lankford said. “Until now, everyone was simply speculating about the relationship between firearms and public mass shootings. My study provides empirical evidence of a positive association between the two.”

The study also looked at the details of the mass shootings, and found that shooters in other countries were 3.6 times less likely to use multiple weapons. The findings showed more than half of mass shooters in the U.S. used at least two weapons.

The data also showed that on average attacks in the U.S. have fewer casualties than in other countries: 6.87 victims in the U.S. versus 8.81 victims in other countries. Lankford suggested the lower average is due to U.S. law enforcement officials being better trained to deal with a mass shooting event than authorities in other countries “because so many horrific attacks have occurred here.”

Schools, factories and office buildings are also more commonly attacked in the U.S., while attacks abroad are more common in military settings such as barracks and checkpoints.

READ MORE: Sandy Hook father welcomes California victim’s dad to ‘family’

Other factors Lankford suggested could contribute to the high rates in the U.S. include pressure to achieve “the American Dream”, and mental heath issues such as depression and schizophrenia.

“Other countries certainly have their share of people who struggle with these problems, but they may be less likely to indulge in the delusions of grandeur that are common among these offenders in the U.S., and, of course, less likely to get their hands on the guns necessary for such attacks,” said Lankford.

Lankford said the study could provide insight into policy changes that might help decrease the number of mass shootings.

“The United States could likely reduce its number of school shootings, workplace shootings, and public mass shootings in other places if it reduced the number of guns in circulation.”

© Shaw Media, 2015

[CanadaEH]

or influence from generations who grew up admiring the actions portrayed in novels / films that made heroes out of "Real live / dead Bad Guys".

Really? Really??

[Guest pikachu]

After every mass shooting in American there are calls by gun control advocates to implement stricter gun control laws and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms under the rationale that it is necessary to prevent similar murders in the future.

Putting aside the Second Amendment for a moment (as if they cared what it said, anyway) it is shameless in how they exploit appalling crimes for political purposes.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty realizes how impractical their solutions are, such as limiting the capacity of gun magazines or the features on rifles. Such impracticality reveals that they are wholly uninterested in solving the problem.

The basis of their argument for gun control is that guns are to blame for people murdering one another. This statement inanely infers that means precede motive. To paraphrase retired Marine and former reporter Fred Reed, people didn’t start hunting when they learned how to make spears.

They learned how to make spears to become better hunters.

To argue anything different about people and guns requires that either a person hasn't read a single history book or they possess a profound ignorance about human nature.

The unpleasant truth is the only things that prevent people from committing murder are desire or morality, self-preservation, and ability. In other words, most people have no desire to murder, or they also believe murder is morally wrong.

So the idea never enters their minds. For the small percentage of people who actually entertain the notion, the repercussions it would have on their life are too great.

Society focuses on regulating people through these first two elements because as strange and uncomfortable as it is to think about, it is impossible to control the ability. Opportunities are everywhere. Society still functions in spite of this because, due to previously established moral norms and effective repercussions, the matter is moot.

This means that even if gun control measures worked in keeping guns out of the hands of would-be murderers, these people will inevitably find another way to act on their desire. If they can’t obtain a gun, they will use another method.

Consider that Timothy McVeigh murdered hundreds using fertilizer. Gary Ridgeway and Ted Bundy strangled their victims to death. The 9/11 terrorists murdered 3,000 people using plastic knives and airplanes.

They didn’t try to get guns to do the job, fail to obtain them, and then go home and live decent lives as a result. They had the desire to do evil and no concern for their wellbeing after the fact.

No gun control measure could have stopped them.

Which brings us to our next point. The only thing worse than the impracticality of gun control legislation as a remedy for mass killings is the underlying premise that “guns are responsible” or those laws could have prevented the murders from happening.

It takes away all moral culpability from the murderer and places it on an inanimate object that can do nothing on its own. Not considered in any way is the moral depravity of the person in question.

Even gun control advocates won’t claim that their proposals would cause the would-be murderer to have a change of heart.

When gun control advocates express outrage over the means of murder, rather than the murder itself, the inference is that had the murderer used another tool to commit the act it would have been less reprehensible.

It’s almost inferred that it is perfectly natural a person have a desire to murder their fellow man in such a senseless manner and the only real “crime” is that they used a gun to do it.

If this is not the case, why the use of the Orwellian term "gun violence” as if such violence is worse than other types of violence? Why not simply call it “murder”?

Here we confront the most unpleasant truth about gun control proponents. They are utterly disingenuous about their real objective: To disarm the American public. They believe no one except police and the military should have guns.

It is their raison d'être. Mass shootings give them a subterfuge to push toward this objective covertly.

Those who argue otherwise, I would simply ask you to look at their actions, rather than listen to their words. It is why they push for legislation that only concerns private citizens acquiring and possessing firearms and never law enforcement or the military.

It is why they express zero alarm at the militarization of police departments, never call for restrictions on the type of firearms they can use, or ever speak of “gun violence” whenever an officer is involved an unjustified shooting.

It is why they constantly claim that the less guns citizens own the safer we are. It is why they attempt to denigrate anyone who opposes their agenda or merely possesses firearms.

It is why they portray gun owners as a fringe element of society when they in fact represent a bulk of the American population. It is also why they never draw attention to the way in which politicians are protected by the very same firearms they want to keep out of the hands of ordinary people.

It is too much of a stretch to imagine the real reason gun control proponents view law-abiding gun owners with hostility is because when all is said and done, they would like to use the government in ways which deep down they fear could result in massed armed resistance if they attempted to carry out those policies?

It is an unspoken, but nevertheless evident truth that as long as the American people have guns, the government and those who would use it for their own ends are restricted in terms of how frank they can be about what they’re doing, what policies they can implement, and how quickly they can do so.

For many of these political policies, disarmament has to come first. It isn't hard to imagine that this hostility to private gun ownership reflects a growing impatience on the part of many who long for their political vision to be realized.

Mass shootings are the acts of savages. Coercion in the form of legislation, however, cannot civilize such people. The only thing that can be done is ensure people have the means of protecting themselves when someone tries to harm them.

Ironically, this is the opposite of what "gun safety" advocates propose, because the purpose of those proposals has nothing to do with stopping murder.

http://www.shallnot.org/gun_control_is_not_meant_to_stop_massed_shootings

[Don Hudson]

I "liked" the post above not because I am a believer in the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment but because I don't think that a nation needs such a rule in the first place. It appears as though every other nation thinks this way as well. I think the article makes emminent sense. Ironically, it isn't a defence of the 2nd Amendment, it is a description of of a mature culture and a civilized society. I think Canada is a prime example of such a society and it appears as though many nations think this as well.

[J.O.]

My main problem is with the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which was never intended to allow what has become today. I also guffaw every time I hear the pro-gun folks saying that the amendment was meant to allow citizens to defend themselves from a rogue government. Good luck defending yourselves with pea shooters when the government has fighters, bombers, tanks, missiles and UAVs.

[Guest pikachu]

The Gun by CJ Chivers is a - edit must read - edit. The AK47 (or any other cheap and readily available firearm) is a real force.

[mo32a]

I found it interesting that three unarmed US citizens took down a well armed terrorist on the train in France. Sorta belies the argument that you need to be armed to defend yourself.

[Guest pikachu]

Keeping in mind that was a "well armed terrorist" with a malfunctioning firearm. Or as his lawyer says, just a guy down on his luck robbing a train.

Defending themselves while unarmed against an AK47? How about saving their ____ing lives?!

I hope you have three very well trained US Military servicemen at your disposal in your time of need so you don't have to defend yourself.

Remember, the police are only minutes away when seconds count.

[DEFCON]

Don

You've said that you consider Canada to be a 'mature society'. Wouldn't our liberal immigration policy alone and its watering down impact / effect on Canada's rapidly changing demographic provide a pretty solid indicator that we're anything but mature and have a long way to go in that regard? I mean, we don't have anything remotely close to a homologous culture, which leaves the Country with a yet to be determined common collective opinion / direction on most issues.

[Guest]

Sadly the "beat" goes on:

irginia TV reporters shot dead during live broadcast, station says

Journalists Alison Parker, Adam Ward died in the incident, station says

Thomson Reuters Posted: Aug 26, 2015 9:00 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 26, 2015 9:46 AM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/virginia-tv-reporters-shot-dead-during-live-broadcast-station-says-1.3204224?cmp=rss

Two television journalists were shot and killed in Virginia on Wednesday morning while conducting a live television interview, the station said.

The incident occurred at about 6:45 a.m. ET during a live broadcast in Bedford County, when shots could be heard, sending the reporter and the person she was interviewing screaming and ducking for cover.

(WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT): YouTube video of the live broadcast https://youtu.be/DbG7uFxVfnY

The station, WDBJ7 in Roanoke, Virginia, said the reporter Alison Parker, 24, and the cameraman, Adam Ward, 27, died in the incident.

Parker and Ward were filming a feature segment for the morning news program at Bridgewater Plaza, a shopping and recreation plaza.

"We do not know the motive, we do not know who the killer is," Jeff Marks, the station's general manager, said on air.

"Our hearts are broken," Marks said

[Guest]

Not a soldier, just a very brave teacher.

August 25, 2015 8:00 pm Updated: August 26, 2015 2:47 am

West Virginia teacher calmed student who held class at gunpoint

By Jonathan Mattise And John Raby The Associated Press

Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015, in Philippi, W.Va. AP Photo/Ben Queen A A PHILIPPI, W.Va. – With 29 terrified students looking on, a West Virginia high school teacher managed to calm a 14­year­old student who pointed a gun at her in her classroom, giving a police chief time to arrive and convince the boy to free his peers and surrender, authorities said. No one was hurt Tuesday in the hostage­taking drama that rocked a high school in the small Appalachian town of Philippi, home to about 3,000 people some 115 miles south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was the ninth day of the new school year, and some students said they didn’t believe it at first when a so­called “code red” alert was raised. State Police Lt. Michael Baylous said it began after 1 p.m. Tuesday with the student taking a pistol into a second­floor classroom at Philip Barbour High School, a drab brown campus in a rural area of tree­peppered rolling hills. He wouldn’t say what spurred the hostagetaking, citing an ongoing investigation

But praise followed quickly for the teacher and police chief who helped bring the ordeal to a safe conclusion. Without naming the teacher, Barbour County Schools Superintendent Jeffrey Woofter credited her for maintaining control just when classes were about to change. Woofter also praised the local police chief for getting quickly to the scene and talking the suspect into giving up. The teacher talked the boy into not allowing the next group of students to enter the classroom. Alerted by those students, another teacher told school administrators, who then called 911. “The teacher did a miraculous job, calming the student, maintaining order in the class,” Woofter said. The entire situation was contained in about two or three hours, police said. Meanwhile, the rest of the 724­student body was safely evacuated to the bleachers of the football stadium, where they awaited rides home.

READ MORE: New study finds the U.S. has 31% of the world’s mass shootings Kayla Smith, a 17­year­old senior, said initially no one in her classroom in the same building took the “code red” warning seriously. “Then we all held hands and said a prayer,” she said. Woofter said Philippi Police Chief Jeff Walters negotiated the release of the students from the classroom and eventually got the suspect to surrender a few hours after it began. Walters “did an awesome job negotiating with this very troubled young man,” Woofter said. Barbour County Prosecutor Leckta Poling said she plans to pursue unspecified charges against the suspect, who was taken to a hospital for evaluation. Poling said that because the case involves a juvenile, the court process would be closed. Police haven’t identified the student. Steve Saltis was among several anxious parents who went to the school and waited outside an area cordoned off by police tape while waiting for students to be released. Saltis said by phone that his daughter attends the school and that “a lot” was going through his mind while he waited for her to head home. Saltis said many students had been sitting in the school’s football stadium after the school was evacuated and that he was able to talk to his daughter. But Saltis said law enforcement officials told parents nothing while the suspect was still in the school. “I think that’s the scariest I’ve been in a long time,” Saltis said later. Woofter, a former sheriff who started his new job as schools superintendent on July 1, credited parents for heeding police warnings to stay away from the school. “In such a trying time, I was just amazed at our parents and how everybody responded to the situation,” Woofter said. “I just thank God everybody is safe and hopefully we’ll never have a repeat of that again.” State Police Capt. Dave Reider said there will be an increased law enforcement presence at the school Wednesday. He said the school will be open but the start of classes will be delayed by two hours. — Associated Press writer John Raby in Charleston, West Virginia, contributed to this report. © The Canadian Press, 2015 Report an erro

[Don Hudson]

Hi DEFCON; - To me, a mature society is both technologically proficient and humanely conceived which to me means "democratically conceived". These days it has become extremely problematic to define notions such as, "kinder, gentler" without conveying some sense of naïveté and, by defninition, immaturity, but a society that feels "kinder, gentler" is to me a more mature society than one in which one lives one's daily life in fear, suspicion and/or loathing. Nor do I think these notions eminate from the 1950's - they are real, as are those occasions (meaning, not societies), which warrant fear and suspicion. A further element is, such notions stretch across a long history rather than say, over a few decades.

So I'm not sure I follow your argument which I understand as: "Letting immigration numbers rise or remain high dilutes local (established) maturity and the dilution-as-such also dilutes the maturity of a society."

I mean this in a positive way - that's fascinating and original in the assumptions made.

The first assumption is that those immigrating are not conceptually mature, or do not come from mature countries, (as defined here). We could research numbers and countries as one way to establish some understanding. There is a further, underlying assumption behind this which is the notion of conformity, sameness, which, when applied to those who are "new" to us and to our country, introduces the notion of "assimilation" as a standard, (which in turn permits judgement). All this is pretty natural behaviour - we expect that those who come to our country will eventually "be the same as us". Of course, that isn't (and can't be) strictly true, even as we know that were we to emigrate to some countries, instant assimilation and therefore invisibility is expected, (or else).

The second assumption is the notion of "dilution", which is in opposition to the notion say, of "synergy". In fact, it is, in large part, the notion of synergy which drives an acceptance of immigration. If immigrants were simply "unskilled wards of the state or enemies of the state" (which does not in my view include the category, "refugees", the acceptance of whom Canada is known around the world - again, meant in a positive way), then we may be able to point to a dilution-factor and therefore a change in "maturity". But I don't think that is the case, at least in any meaningful way.

I think one broad "definition" or rather, "series of understandings" a mature country isn't a "broken society". That seems a loose definition but if we take a look around the world, there are numerous examples of what a broken society looks like, and Canada certainly isn't in that category.

Neither age (of the country), nor "value of the individual" would automatically qualify as standards by which a country could be judged as mature but they are good indicators when taken with other qualities such as technological advancement, care of the young and old, educational levels, violent crime rates and GNP (per capita).

Also, I think a country's maturity can be seen (and assessed) in the value placed on, and the actual presence of traditional human cultural expressions such as music, dance, theatre, sculpture, architecture, painting, and even a society's infrastructure such as public transportation, sanitary services, healthcare services etc. Often we see these expressed in informal studies such as Which country is the best place to live in?, and so on.

[DEFCON]

Hi Don

“So I'm not sure I follow your argument which I understand as: "Letting immigration numbers rise or remain high dilutes local (established) maturity and the dilution-as-such also dilutes the maturity of a society."”

You understand my contention correctly Don.

I’d like to draw your attention to Swiss society, which amongst others, is old world, industrious, free, democratic, progressive and influential on the world stage. I believe the stability inherent in that society comes about because the Swiss know who they are, precisely what they stand for, and are always willing to do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect that culture. These considerations along with the ‘kindler gentler’ approach you alluded to represents maturity imho.

On the other side, our governments encourage individualism, multiculturalism, or even tribalism by another name as is evidenced in one way when people that are born elsewhere and domestically too identify themselves as hyphenated citizens; i.e., African – Canadian, which confers a form of special status upon the individual and tells me, an ordinary Canadian mutt, that the hyphenator identifies with his African heritage first, meaning he’s really only a Canadian of convenience. When individuals and the various immigrant cultures living within the larger encompassing society attempt to maintain their cultural and religious distinctiveness at the cost of inclusiveness, the path being followed can’t be called synergistic and is responsible I think for the dilution of the greater body.

[Guest]

No comment needed.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2187407/louisiana-police-officer-2-others-shot-injuries-not-known/

SUNSET, La. — A police officer and two other people were shot Wednesday in southwestern Louisiana, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson said.

He said troopers were on the way to the scene in Sunset, about 60 miles west of Baton Rouge, after getting a call around 4:45 p.m. Wednesday.

Edmonson says the shooting reportedly took place near a convenience store. He says the officer was “responsive” but he has no details on the extent of the officer’s injuries — or those of the other two people who were shot.

Tonette Thibodeaux of the Sunset police department confirms that an officer was shot but says she does not have any details.

Sunset is a town of about 2,900 in St. Landry Parish, 13 miles north of Lafayette.

The police department consists of Chief Louie Padilla, six officers, four dispatchers, a secretary and 12 reserve officers, according to the department’s website.

[Guest]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-guns-glory-broken-dreams-1.3203335?cmp=rss

Mass shootings in the U.S.: Guns, glory, broken dreams

A new study sheds light on why mass shootings in the U.S. are 'an exceptionally American problem'

By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News Posted: Aug 25, 2015 5:46 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 28, 2015 9:06 AM ET

The shocking murder of two journalists carried out on live television this week has Americans once again asking questions about why these kinds of crimes seem to happen with such frequency in their country.

Three people were shot, two of them died and the gunman killed himself in Roanoke, Va.

A few days before the shooting, researcher Adam Lankford was at the American Sociological Association's conference in Chicago presenting his study that found the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings.

His findings are even more relevant following Wednesday's events in Virginia, even though the deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, journalists at a Roanoke TV station, don't technically meet the definition of "mass shooting" — four or more victims.

The University of Alabama professor found that despite having less than five per cent of the world's population, the United States was home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shooters between 1966 and 2012.

His work discusses the reasons behind his finding, and in the context of the theory of American exceptionalism, he finds that there is indeed something uniquely American about mass shootings.

They are "an exceptionally American problem," he writes.

Using data compiled by the New York City Police Department in its 2012 report on active shooting incidents in the U.S. and around the world, as well as data from a 2014 FBI report, Lankford determined that the U.S. had 90 mass shooting incidents during that time frame.

That's more than five times the number of second-place finisher the Philippines. Russia, Yemen and France followed in that order. Another finding about the U.S. stood out: Of the cases reviewed worldwide, 62 per cent of all school and workplace shootings happened within the U.S.

"Overall, some combination of American exceptionalism, American gun culture, and American strains could potentially explain the commonality of public mass shooters in the United States," Lankford writes.

There are limitations to this study, Lankford noted in an interview.

For example, he only included shootings where four or more people were killed, and only looked at active or rampage shooter situations — killings in workplaces or movie theatres, for example, not gangs battling it out on a street.

Many Americans take their constitutional right to bear arms very seriously, and Lankford's study points out that the U.S. ranks first out of 178 countries when it comes to gun ownership. A 2007 survey showed Americans own 88.8 guns per 100 people. Canada ranked 13th, but is not even close to the U.S. with 30.8 guns per 100 people.

Failing to achieve 'the American dream'

America's gun culture and the widespread availability of firearms, contributes to the country's mass shooting problem, the study says. It found that American mass shooters were more likely to arm themselves with multiple weapons, though they killed fewer people than shooters in other countries.

Lankford said that may be because law enforcement is so accustomed to mass shootings now in the U.S. that they can respond faster and with more established procedures to prevent more casualties than in other countries.

While Lankford's study suggested a strong link between the civilian firearm ownership rate and the number of public mass shooters in the United States, he said there could be other factors that make the U.S. especially prone to public mass shooting incidents.

America puts more pressure on its citizens to succeed professionally and financially than other countries, Lankford discusses in his study, and when Americans have bad experiences at work or school and fail to achieve their goals, they are more likely to respond with acts of violence.

Aurora theater killer James Holmes was found guilty of the mass shooting in August and sentenced to life in prison. (Andy Cross/The Denver Post/Associated Press)

"Notably, these strains seem to transcend age and class. In America, students, adults, blue-collar workers and white-collar workers may all be somewhat more susceptible to the social pressures that, in extreme cases, can lead to mass shootings," he writes.

Different cultures define success in different ways, and while Canadians and Americans might seek the same things in life, achieving "the Canadian dream" isn't a national ethos the way "the American dream" is south of the border.

"I'm not an expert on Canadian culture or history, but the American dream has carved out its own mythology and set of expectations," Lankford said.

Killers have often cited a failure to achieve a goal at work or at school, places where shootings happen more often in the U.S. than in other countries, as motivation for their crime, the study notes.

A focus on fame

Then there's also the idolization of fame, which appears uniquely American, according to Lankford. Increasingly in the U.S., especially among young people, becoming famous is considered the ultimate form of success.

"If being famous is one of your most important goals, it's setting up a lot of people to fail," he said in the interview.

"Unfortunately, due to some combination of strains, mental illness and American idolization of fame, some mass shooters succumb to terrible delusions of grandeur, and seek fame and glory through killing," his study says. They realize that the only way they will become a household name is by killing innocent people.

Lankford said understanding some of the social reasons that may contribute to the mass shootings problem in the U.S. is important for other countries such as Canada, given the degree to which American media and culture are exported around the world.

The Columbine shooters, for example, were considered vigilante heroes by other at-risk individuals in foreign countries who saw the fame the massacre brought them. The suspects in a plot to carry out a mass shooting in Halifax earlier this year were "Columbiners," devotees of the gunmen who carried out the 1999 school shooting in Colorado.

"If the lust for fame continues to spread from America to Canada, that would be something that people might need to watch out for," Lankford said.

He concludes in his study that the most obvious step to reduce mass shootings in the U.S. is to reduce the availability of guns — but that's an uphill battle politically. In the meantime, what is more realistic is trying to help those who are struggling to cope with their stress and their strains.

"For concerned citizens, this provides an opportunity to get them the help they so desperately need, and to thereby make the world both a safer and healthier place," Lankford said.

[Guest]

Folks, it is not just happening in the US. Gun violence are up in Canada also.

Toronto police stumped by increase in gun violence this year

Despite gun violence, deputy chief says city is still 'safest major urban centre in North America'

CBC News Posted: Aug 21, 2015 7:33 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 21, 2015 7:33 PM ET

Deputy Police chief Peter Sloly is concerned about the increase in shootings in the city but is confident police are "going to get on top of this.

"http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-stumped-by-increase-in-gun-violence-this-year-1.3200089

And in Calgary

Calgary Police say the level of gun violence in the city is like nothing they've seen before.

"Disputes over drugs are nothing new, but the use of guns to resolve these disputes has now become the rule instead of the exception," said Staff Sgt. Quinn Jacques, who heads the guns and gangs unit.

"We are deeply concerned by this."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/gun-violence-in-calgary-has-police-residents-on-edge-1.3162472

[DEFCON]

A ‘guns and gang’ unit? Why not throw arsonists in to the mix too?

The decision to attach guns together with gangs in the unit name is in my view a rather blatant attempt to create a psychological association with which the public can and will improperly relate.

Giving government the Right to bear firearms at their discretion has resulted in the irresponsible use of and immeasurably more wrongful death than any gang of bad guys could ever hope to accumulate.

Perhaps the Second Amendment isn’t as far out of step with the modern world as some would like to believe?

Until government is prepared to demonstrate a true resolve to deal violent criminals out of the game, I wouldn’t be willing to give up my guns to make a bleeding heart feel like they’ve accomplished something useful.

Who will be the first to put a sign on their lawn declaring their home to be ‘gun free’?

[Guest]

A ‘guns and gang’ unit? Why not throw arsonists in to the mix too?

The decision to attach guns together with gangs in the unit name is in my view a rather blatant attempt to create a psychological association with which the public can and will improperly relate.

Giving government the Right to bear firearms at their discretion has resulted in the irresponsible use of and immeasurably more wrongful death than any gang of bad guys could ever hope to accumulate.

Perhaps the Second Amendment isn’t as far out of step with the modern world as some would like to believe?

Until government is prepared to demonstrate a true resolve to deal violent criminals out of the game, I wouldn’t be willing to give up my guns to make a bleeding heart feel like they’ve accomplished something useful.

Who will be the first to put a sign on their lawn declaring their home to be ‘gun free’?

Defcon, this unit has been in existence for a number of years and is quite successful. You might find the Calgary Police Org chart to be enlightening. Re the 2nd amendment, it hasn't worked too well for the US and def. does not have a place in Canada.

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Documents/CPS-organizational-chart.pdf

[Fido]

You might find the Calgary Police Org chart to be enlightening.

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Documents/CPS-organizational-chart.pdf

It really bothers me when organizations spend so much time dividing up the outfit into as many little boxes as the paper will fit and yet the primary function of the organization gets lost.

Spend some time on the Calgary Police org chart and see how long it takes to find the box that says "Guys who patrol the streets" or "Guys who respond to calls".

I gave up trying to find it.

[Guest]

It really bothers me when organizations spend so much time dividing up the outfit into as many little boxes as the paper will fit and yet the primary function of the organization gets lost.

Spend some time on the Calgary Police org chart and see how long it takes to find the box that says "Guys who patrol the streets" or "Guys who respond to calls".

I gave up trying to find it.

likely because the majority do as part of their assigned duties.

[Guest pikachu]

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behaviour of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behaviour of the law-abiding."

-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994

​An innocent law abiding citizen needs to be licensed to own a restricted firearm. There is nothing else in this country I can think of that requires one to be licensed in order to own. I won't look in the chart to find how few licenced firearm owners commit crimes with their legally registered firearms. "Gun control" does not stop "gun violence".

The right to keep and bear arms in Canada does not exist. It is considered a privilege. With the stroke of a pen innocent law abiding citizens have become criminals.

Unlicensed criminals always have guns. Guns are not a problem. Criminals are a problem.

"A handgun is an effective tool for self defence. It's obviously useful because police carry them."

[Super 80]

In my travels in the US it isn't criminals with guns that terrify me, those are frankly easily avoided with a little situational awareness. It's heavily armed and confrontational paranoids who have been brainwashed by AM radio and Fox News to believe that their distant suburb is as dangerous as the favelas of Brazil and that armed confrontations with people walking down the street, salesmen, people pulling into the wrong driveway or knocking on the wrong door are entirely justified.

[J.O.]

I'm glad I don't live my life in a constant state of paranoia. My mom used to say that people who go through life looking for trouble usually have no problem finding it.

[deicer]

Much like the religious debate, if you aren't happy with the local laws and customs, there are other countries on this planet that have laws/government that support your beliefs.

If you are that unhappy with the local laws and customs, then please feel free to emigrate to a constituency that is more to your liking.

Just don't tell the rest of us that your viewpoint is better.

[Specs]

How come we need a license to own a nuclear reactor?

I want a nuclear reactor to generate my own electricity so I can heat my house and run my appliances. I also want to ensure my families ability to survive after an attack on our soil. Done right, it's completely harmless. Why should my right to that be restricted?