RaverChankoMX3 wrote:jschrauwen wrote:Meep, not to minmize your tramatic and harrowing experience...
Sooo...in no way did you minimize Meep's horrific event to push an [political] agenda on gun ownership policy? One would be hard-pressed to read your response and find otherwise:
jschrauwen wrote:The home owner is an and out of the house that quick with a loaded weapon...It's an evil monster that will never go away for the US unless it changes it's laws, policies, views and perspectives on the NEED to bear arms.
John
Furthermore, according to your native provience, The Toronto Star:
"...From Pearson International Airport to the Don Valley Parkway, and between the 407 and the Lake, Ontario is nearly gun-free...But of course, that is exactly where most gun crimes take place. The conclusion to be drawn from the Star's graphic is obvious: The most sensational shootings and highest number of gun murders in Ontario occur within the area that already has by far the lowest levels of legal firearm ownership.
With this one map, the Star unwittingly proved correct those who argue that a ban on all legal handguns will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Toronto. It also debunked all those, such as the Ontario government, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Star itself, who have made a ban the lynchpin of their crime-reduction strategies"
The simple, inescapable truth is that most firearms crimes being committed in Ontario are not being committed with legal guns, so no ban on legal guns -- whether handguns or shotguns and rifles -- is going to have any impact on crime rates.
2/15/2006
Ontario Crime Rates Highest Where Legal Gun Ownership Lowest
by Lorne Gunter:
I'm sorry John but humans have been committing theft, rape, and larceny for thousands of years. We're still going to have crimes even if you ban handguns. Instead of taking a reactive approach (banning handguns) to these issues, try using a proactive approach (prevention). Inference is a powerful tool when you ask they correct "why-questions":
Why do people steal? It has been suggested that socioeconomic status (S.E.S.) is a risk factor. For further reading, I'd suggest MIT Press for current journal articles.
In the end game, perhaps, you'd perfer the assailant use a knife instead? Nevertheless, we could ban those next and continue to be blind to the realistic root issues instead chasing an unrealistic "
evil monster"
the quote from the star is not exactly what i call.... reputable and you can find one source that says one thing im sure i can find one that says the exact opposite. It proves nothing really.
BUT BEYOND THAT.
Ban the guns, if the USA can invade a country full of terrorists, camel jockeys with AK47s and fucked up ppl who just had violent tendencies towards them. Then banning local firearms is easy, use the army if you have to as a policing mechanism against crime, plus that said,
increase the number of police. I mean if crime is that bad get some
good cops.. you know the ones that dont just sit on the highway
pulling over speeding vehicles, or stopping kids with loud mufflers.
Get them trained to stop crime... by crime i mean the real nitty gritty
shitty crime that poor meep and kids had to see.
Violence begets violence, Israel / Palestine is the perfect example. And this statement is always true... unless your Jesus. Which i wish i was cause my car would be GODLY PIMPED but im not.
You own a gun to "protect" your house. Which is the very extreme level of deterency in a neighbourhood. However why not barbwire fencing around the backyard, alarm systems, security guards, booby traps first? Do i want to get sugar from my neighbour probably not anymore.
There are better ways then just giving everyone the right to own guns.
Instead of building communities we tear them down by chosing for a higher violent outcome. I own a gun i carry it with me to work, guy pisses me off enough i shot him in the head oops. Dude backs into my mx3, BLAM BLAM.
So many reasons not to just have guns everywhere. Problem is in society and and towns and cities need to start new initiatives to bring neighbours together. yah its complex but probably worth it.
People can say yeah crime rates dropped because everyone is packing. But that is not a scientific correlation and not proof. Maybe everyone
shot each other? Maybe the criminals moved to the next town? there are alot of variables. In the end just its not a simple process, but it needs to start with disarmament and a peaceful process. All countries need to focus more on themselves for a bit and then the world can slowly become a better place, USA can be the land of the free.
there are criminals, and yes he can have a f---ing nuclear weapon i dont care, if my time is up its up. Howver im not gonna shoot another person and lower myself to his level. The most disarming thing in the world is a peaceful even loving reaction to violence, stops ppl dead in their tracks, confuses the s--- outta them. Laugh all you want, there are sooo many accounts of it in WW2, even in the most horrible places EVER ON EARTH OR IN HELL, the death camps.
There are ways. They are hard, but probably worth it.
ps. Iran must stop their nuclear program? what the f--- for they are just protecting their backyard right?
violence begets violence
live by the sword die by the sword
peace beotchs
1994, GS, KLZE, 67mm TB, LightFlywheel, Centreforce Stg 3 Clutch, CAI, KL36 ecu, B&M shortshifter, Solid poly mounts, lightweight Aluminum Cross memeber, 2.5 high flo cat, 2.5 all back, Tanabe Exhaust, optima battery, ZX2 HD tokicos, eibach prokit, black altezzas.....
http://www.modifiedmazda.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.