# Most Dangerous Cities in Canada



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MacLean's recently did a report on the most dangerous cities in Canada. They are based on the 2006 per capita crime rates (most recent available). Created a ranking based on aggregate results of six personal and property crimes: Murder, sexual assault, aggravated assault (the most serious kind), robbery, breaking and entering, and auto theft.

Halifax took place number 10, Montreal number 19, Toronto number 26, while Regina took the cake at number 1.

Other interesting fact: If you live in Winnipeg or Joliette, Quebec, you more likely than anywhere else in the U.S. to have your car stolen, including Detroit and Las Vegas, auto theft capitals of America.

Thoughts?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

It's available for viewing online.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

1. Regina
2. Saskatoon
3. Winnipeg
4. Prince George
5. Edmonton
6. New Westminster <--- what?? the crime rate has really gone down recently...
7. Chilliwack
8. Victoria
9. Vancouver
10. Halifax

Wild Wild West baby.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Until we get a lot tougher on crime, these kind of stats will continue to grow.

There are so many young men packing hand guns on the streets of Edmonton now, that shootings have become a nightly occurrence.

And last week, transit security called police who sent undercover officers into Edmonton LRT stations in a sting operation. 

They posed as average citizens to catch teens who regularly harass and rob people awaiting trains. Police arrested a dozen or more for attempted robbery and uttering threats, etc.

I pity the transit security people as they are powerless to stop these punks with only a baton for a weapon. One never takes a baton to a gunfight.

Judges have to toughen up sentences and throw these creeps in jail for a year or more so they get the message their behaviour is unacceptable.

Sadly, it's the only language they understand.

And for the record, a third of those arrested were teen age girls.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I guess it isn't worth stealing the old krappy oil burning k-cars that inhabit the streets of The Hammer. But I must say that my street is the destination for many stolen cars, and for some reason, most of them are from Brampton. We usually get one or two a month, windows smashed in, sitting on the street. Of course, they won't do anything is the plates are on the car.

There is an abandoned van on my friend's street, stolen from a security company, and that has been there for oh, five or six years, but because it has plates, they can only put more fines under the wipers...

I think The Hammer is fairly safe, as most murders in this town are either domestics or mafia liquidations. The regular Joe is fairly safe, except at the one Horton's we used to have coffee at where there are regular stabbings ever since they closed the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. Come to think about it, downtown is a freak show as well...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

My car got broken in to earlier this week, and my only thoughts is that the police won't do anything about it so I'm putting in a two-way alarm so the next time someone wants to break into my car I'm gonna go kick the poo out of him.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Until we get a lot tougher on crime, these kind of stats will continue to grow.


The only stats here are a ranking...and all you can say about that is: as long as there are things to rank, there will be rankings.

The following is from page 3 of the online version of the Macleans article:



> It's easy to paint a lurid picture in Canada's major cities of crime rampaging out of control. In fact, Canada's overall national crime rate hit its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006, led by a drop in property crimes in all provinces. Still, the violent crime rate, which climbed from the 1960s through the end of the last century, was unchanged. Headline-grabbing gun crimes, perhaps the biggest driver of public fear, were stable in 2006 for the fourth straight year.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I can see a new slogan for my city: Toronto--Safer Than The Media Makes Us Out To Be!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMatt said:


> The only stats here are a ranking...and all you can say about that is: as long as there are things to rank, there will be rankings.
> 
> The following is from page 3 of the online version of the Macleans article:
> 
> It's easy to paint a lurid picture in Canada's major cities of crime rampaging out of control. In fact, Canada's overall national crime rate hit its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006, led by a drop in property crimes in all provinces. Still, the violent crime rate, which climbed from the 1960s through the end of the last century, was unchanged. Headline-grabbing gun crimes, perhaps the biggest driver of public fear, were stable in 2006 for the fourth straight year.


Unless you have lived here, you won't understand. In Edmonton, it is growing and growing fast. And it is young men who are carrying handguns. More shootings are commonplace and increasing at an alarming rate. The Maclean's 2006 info is sadly out of date with the reality of 2008.

From StatsCan:

While the homicide rate fell in general, the proportion of young people accused of homicides hit a 45-year high. In 2006, 84 people between the ages of 12 and 17 were accused of committing homicide. In 2005, 72 were accused.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I can see a new slogan for my city: Toronto--Safer Than The Media Makes Us Out To Be!


That is what I thought, until my cousin moved from the Bathurst-Queen neighbourhood out to Islington. He became quite afraid to journey out after 8pm, and has the bullet holes in his car to prove the danger of the drug trade gone wild. Of course, Scarberia is quite dangerous in places. But the Media does overblow things - they have an agenda.

We need a justice system that is not hindered by cry-baby libertarians. Criminals should pay dearly, and I would not be adverse to allowing police brutality against degenerate criminals, just in case a judge later proves to be of the losing persuasion. We need that dude from Walking Tall, or perhaps Harry Callighan...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Interesting when you listen to news reports about crime in Scarborough.... 

If the crime occurred in Scarborough, it's a Scarborough crime.

If the crime was committed elsewhere, but by someone who once lived in Scarborough, it's a Scarborough crime. ("the perpetrator, from Scarborough")

If the crime was committed on the east side of North York, it's a Scarborough crime. ("just outside Scarborough")

I was born in Scarborough and my office manager is a proud Scarberian... she started pointing this out to me on the radio news... if there is any possible link to Scarborough, they go out of their way to mention Scarborough. No wonder it gets a bad rap.

That said, there are some terrible neighbourhoods in Scarborough, but it's a big place, and most of it is fine. (Well, suburban wasteland, but fine.)

Born and bred in Toronto, and very proud of it. I recently had my car broken into, but other than a shattered window, everything was fine. Have never felt unsafe in this city.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

A stranger approached a town and saw an old man sitting on a bench.
The stranger said he was thinking of moving to this town and asked the old man if it was a good town to live in.
The old man asked the stranger what he thought of his former town. 
The stranger said it was an awful place, nasty people, lots of crime and not pretty.
The old man told the stranger that he would not at all like this new town.

A few days later a second stranger approached the town, saw the old man on the bench, and asked the same question about this town.
The old man asked the second stranger what he thought of his former town. 
Second stranger said he liked living in his former town, the people were very friendly, he always felt safe, and it was a pretty town.
The old man told him that he would love living in this new town.

.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> We need a justice system that is not hindered by cry-baby libertarians. Criminals should pay dearly, and I would not be adverse to allowing police brutality against degenerate criminals, just in case a judge later proves to be of the losing persuasion. We need that dude from Walking Tall, or perhaps Harry Callighan...


How about some serious gun crime legislation? Total ban on handguns, if you are a civilian and you have one you go to jail for 5 years minimum. If you use a firearm in a crime of any sort your minimum sentence is automatically tripled.

The problem is that firearms disproportionately give criminals the ability to act out their criminal intent. When was the last time you heard of a drive by stabbing?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> If the crime occurred in Scarborough, it's a Scarborough crime.
> 
> If the crime was committed elsewhere, but by someone who once lived in Scarborough, it's a Scarborough crime. ("the perpetrator, from Scarborough")
> 
> ...


I always knew there was some hidden counter culture gang of roaming Jains that was ultimately responsible for crime in Scarborough.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I always knew there was some hidden counter culture gang of roaming Jains that was ultimately responsible for crime in Scarborough.


It's part of the whole Scarborough/East-End Jains vs. Mississauga/West-End Jains debate. 

Now you know the rest of the story.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> How about some serious gun crime legislation? Total ban on handguns, if you are a civilian and you have one you go to jail for 5 years minimum. If you use a firearm in a crime of any sort your minimum sentence is automatically tripled.
> 
> The problem is that firearms disproportionately give criminals the ability to act out their criminal intent. When was the last time you heard of a drive by stabbing?


Sigh, here we go again.

Hand guns have been strictly regulated in this country since the 1930s, some of the toughest regulations of any country. Legally owned hand guns, or long guns for that matter, are NOT the problem.

The problem is the proliferation of readily available hand guns that make there way here from the USA. A total ban on hand guns would only hurt those innocent souls who use and store their weapons responsibly.

But the courts could help in a big way, as could stiffer penalties. Like how about life in prison if caught in possession of an unregistered hand gun?

Now that might make some of the punks running around carrying them every day think twice. 

But a law is only as good as the courts who mete out the sentence. Even if we had such a law, the do-gooders and bleeding hearts would find a way to coddle criminals and ignore victims. And judges would continue to grant probation. It's the system that sucks.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

Even though I like living in Saskatoon, I admit that I feel more at ease walking around downtown Toronto after midnight than I do walking around downtown Saskatoon after dark.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I think it's the different types of crime. I walked through east side downtown Vancouver at night once and I'm pretty sure there were hundreds of crimes being committed around me but none of them affected me and I was not the least bit scared. Mind my own business and they'll do their own thing. 

A walk though Coquitlam may yield less overall crime rate but if it does happen it's gonna be a group of suburban punks lead by the gang leader who is often left alone by dad who's working late and mom who works all night stocking at Walmart so they can afford their $500,000 house, the others similarly neglected by whoever so they take to this posse to fit in and be respected. They viciously beat me which will leave me in a coma and take my iPod, wallet, and backpack.

Different neighbourhoods yield different crimes.


----------



## dondoucette (Feb 25, 2008)

In the early 80's I lived in Toronto near the corner of Jane and Finch. I grew up in Hamilton and lived there in more recent years. I currently live in Regina.

Two weeks ago we had our first homicide for 2008.

I am not exactly sure what criteria McLeans used to award the "Most Dangerous" title but I can tell you that in 14 years of living here I have never felt threatened or in danger at any time.

As for gun control I agree with SINC. Those of us with registered firearms are up to our eyeballs in red tape while the majority of crime committed with firearms is done so by individuals with illegally obtained and unregistered weapons.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

dondoucette said:


> As for gun control I agree with SINC. Those of us with registered firearms are up to our eyeballs in red tape while the majority of crime committed with firearms is done so by individuals with illegally obtained and unregistered weapons.


I don't agree because the RCMP says 50% of the guns on the street are formerly legal guns stolen from Canadian collectors. 
What is needed is legislation making those who own guns responsible for them until they are decommissioned. Too many "legal gun owners" are selling guns to criminals and too many guns are being stolen from (sold by) "legal" owners. If you buy a gun and it falls into the wrong hands and is used in a crime, you should be libel. Don't like it? Don't get a gun. Gun owners never want to take responsibility for their guns. "Oh it was stolen" is not good enough. Some one gets killed with your gun you too should go to jail. It is just that simple.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> If you buy a gun and it falls into the wrong hands and is used in a crime, you should be libel. Don't like it? Don't get a gun. Gun owners never want to take responsibility for their guns. "Oh it was stolen" is not good enough. Some one gets killed with your gun you too should go to jail. It is just that simple.


How inane. Substitute the word vehicle and you'll see how completely ridiculous your statement is:

"If you buy a vehicle and it falls into the wrong hands and is used in a crime, you should be libel. Don't like it? Don't get a car. Automobile owners never want to take responsibility for their vehicles. "Oh it was stolen" is not good enough. Some one gets killed with your car you too should go to jail. It is just that simple."


You cannot possibly hold anyone who has property stolen responsible for the actions of the thief. 

Besides such a ludicrous law would never stand up against a charter test. Get real.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sigh, here we go again.
> 
> Hand guns have been strictly regulated in this country since the 1930s, some of the toughest regulations of any country. Legally owned hand guns, or long guns for that matter, are NOT the problem.
> 
> ...


Sinc is absolutely correct! BLAME USA! Close the border, restrict every violent movie where guns proliferate, cancel NAFTA.

The USAsian court system can’t stop gun play with heavy duty longtime incarceration. So why would be able to do it.

The millions of young of people under 30 maybe 35, everyone of 'em should be rounded up and put into camps where they will have no access to violent video games to hone their shooter skills. These malevolent youth should stay in the camps until we boomers feel safe or are dead, no wait just ‘till we feel safe. :lmao:


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

MasterBlaster said:


> That doesn't make moving to Saskatoon too appealing.


Nearly all communities have an area where one shouldn't really venture at night.

In Saskatchewan, most violent crimes are committed with knives and not guns. It's easier to outrun a blade than it is a bullet.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> How inane. Substitute the word vehicle and you'll see how completely ridiculous your statement is:


No what is insane is comparing a car and a gun. Cars are for going from place a to b. Guns are weapons. Most stolen cars are not used to kill people. Guns?

Please show the the part of the charter you are referring to.

As I've shown gun, owners don't take their weapons seriously. They sell them to the black market and report them stolen. Again SINC: the RCMP says half the guns come from Canada which means we are half the problem no matter how hard you insist on ignoring the situation. If you want to have a dangerous weapon you should take care of it properly. If it gets stolen, you didn't look after it. Why should all these idiots who can't safeguard their weapons not face any penalties?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

martman said:


> If you want to have a dangerous weapon you should take care of it properly. If it gets stolen, you didn't look after it. Why should all these idiots who can't safeguard their weapons not face any penalties?


Pretty harsh argument there Martman, not to mention silly. Many people take great care of their cars and yet they get stolen. People can be clearly house-proud and meticulous about their homes yet suffer burglaries and home invasions. Please tell me how you can 100% certifiably be certain no one is going to steal your handguns and rifles. I'd love to see the security system for that.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Pretty harsh argument there Martman, not to mention silly. Many people take great care of their cars and yet they get stolen. People can be clearly house-proud and meticulous about their homes yet suffer burglaries and home invasions. Please tell me how you can 100% certifiably be certain no one is going to steal your handguns and rifles. I'd love to see the security system for that.


If you want to prevent theft you can. What you are missing is that I am implying that the majority of "stolen guns" are in fact black market guns reported stolen. Frankly I don't care if it is impossible to 100% safeguard your gun. If you have a gun look after it. If you fail you deserve to pay the price. I'm sick of innocent people paying the price while negligent original owners get off Scott free for their negligence. 

As for cars, this is a bad example. Why? Because you park them on the street. Also a car is not a weapon.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You're so incensed over a weapon you can't even think straight? 

One cannot hold the original owner responsible to anything, car, sling shot, kitchen knife, baseball bat or anything else used in the commission of a crime to kill someone.

By your silly logic the steel worker in Hamilton who made the piece of steel that eventually made the barrel of a gun should be held responsible too?

I can't even be bothered to debate such twisted logic.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> You're so incensed over a weapon you can't even think straight?
> 
> One cannot hold the original owner responsible to anything, car, sling shot, kitchen knife, baseball bat or anything else used in the commission of a crime to kill someone.
> 
> ...


Your slippery slope is a fallacy. I am talking about a finished product which is a weapon designed to kill people. You are making up fantasies about pieces of steel.
You still are strangely silent about those who sell guns then report them as stolen. I wonder why...?

As for thinking straight? I think I have shown that I am indeed coherent but I might question your sobriety/mental status given your constant omission with regard to "stolen" weapons. 

You say one cannot. I say no one has YET. I have no tolerance for those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and negligent gun owners are the poster people for this irresponsibility. You own a gun look after it. You fail, go to jail. Why is this a problem? You want to protect those who illegally sell their weapons or are so negligent they get them stolen? Maybe you think I should leave guns on the front porch and if they get stolen that is ok too?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Pretty harsh argument there Martman,


Yes it is harsh but not as harsh as getting killed by a gun some A-hole sold then reported stolen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> As for cars, this is a bad example. Why? Because you park them on the street. Also a car is not a weapon.


It was in this case:

Langley man prime suspect in 'cowardly crime'

And countless others.

Anything can be used as a weapon. Violence is not limited to guns and guns are not a source of violence, rather violent people are.

If we extend your suggested approach of punishing gun owners, should we not do the same to our judges for criminals who re-offend?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It was in this case:
> 
> Langley man prime suspect in 'cowardly crime'


Still a gun is a weapon and serves no real other purpose. What percent of cars go on to kill people?
Guns?
Right so let's get real here. A gun is designed to kill people. Cars are not. These are very different things and all the disenegeninouity (ya I know spelling) you can muster will never change this fact.

Your extension makes no sense what so ever. Are Judges weapons? Do they kill people in Canada? You are trying to make a slippery slope (which is a fallacy) and failing miserably.
For the record comparing guns to cars is asinine. The gov't already recognizes my argument to a degree which is why it is illegal to leave loaded weapons around your house. I'm just saying they didn't go far enough.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

Vancouver would fare better in the crime stats if we weren't the crackhead capital of North America.

If I am ever touched by property crime I don't even bother calling the police. All they want to do is collect numbers for the annual statistics list. That's no help to me when my tool shed has been cleaned out, my home broken into or my car ransacked. 

Jeez, two years ago I tried to do the civic thing and picked up a pile of used hypodermic syringes which had been dumped by some loser in the back lane behind my house. Children play in the lane so I put them in a bag and took them to the local walk in clinic for disposal in a sharps box. 

The woman at the counter treated me like a junky and told me to take them away. I refused to go back in public with them and eventually had to become loud and indignant which forced a doctor to come out of one of the back examination rooms. he looked at me like I was a lunatic but, after some hesitation, did take the needles. Sometimes the indifference of a big city makes it hard for people to do the right thing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> A gun is designed to kill people.


A gun is designed to fire a bullet at a target. The target becomes the question in the whole guns kill people fallacy.

It takes a person with full intent to load, aim and pull the trigger to kill another person.

People kill people, not guns. Nor knives or bats or poison or whatever is their weapon of choice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> A gun is designed to fire a bullet at a target. The target becomes the question in the whole guns kill people fallacy.
> 
> It takes a person with full intent to load, aim and pull the trigger to kill another person.
> 
> People kill people, not guns. Nor knives or bats or poison or whatever is their weapon of choice.


{sarcasm}guns don't kill people. I do{/sarcasm}

I don't buy that argument. Far too many folks are killed with guns the world over. Guns are not made for target shooting, they are made for killing. You know it, I know it so give it up.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Still a gun is a weapon and serves no real other purpose. What percent of cars go on to kill people?
> Guns?
> Right so let's get real here. A gun is designed to kill people. Cars are not. These are very different things and all the disenegeninouity (ya I know spelling) you can muster will never change this fact.


Heard of hunting? Heard of target practice? Heard of home protection? Guns have lots of purposes.

More people die in automotive collisions in Canada than people die from gun homicides. In fact, more pedestrians and cyclists are killed by cars than by guns.

The death rate per 100,000 people due to cars is about 9. The homicide rate for guns is 0.4 per 100,000. About 20% of Canadians own guns. So, the homicide rate per gun would be roughly 2 per 100,000, which is less than a car.

Thus, your car has a higher chance of killing somebody than a gun (roughly 4 times). You might want to think twice before driving to the store rather than walking.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Heard of hunting? Heard of target practice? Heard of home protection? Guns have lots of purposes.
> 
> More people die in automotive collisions in Canada than people die from gun homicides. In fact, more pedestrians and cyclists are killed by cars than by guns.
> 
> ...


Hunting is killing. Home protection is killing. Target practice is practice for killing and is NOT the reason guns were made. Hand guns in particular (the ones that kill the most people) are designed to kill people at close range. You can pretend this is not true but deep down you know it is. Make all the excuses you want the purpose of guns are to kill. killing people is why they were invented not target practice.

The numbers are sobering but they neglect the fact that cars get used more than guns on a day to day basis and they also neglect the plain fact that most gun deaths are homicides and most car deaths are accidents. Cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.

Your numbers also neglect the question how many stolen cars go on to kill somebody versus how many stolen guns.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}guns don't kill people. I do{/sarcasm}
> 
> I don't buy that argument. Far too many folks are killed with guns the world over. Guns are not made for target shooting, they are made for killing. You know it, I know it so give it up.


Sorry, but please don't tell me what I know or don't know. A gun is no more lethal than your car. Depends on the nut holding the wheel or the trigger. 

I handled and shot enough guns in my day to know the difference. Don't ever recall shooting a person either. Cardinal rule, NEVER point a gun at a person, loaded or unloaded. So perhaps you should give it up?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but please don't tell me what I know or don't know. A gun is no more lethal than your car. Depends on the nut holding the wheel or the trigger.


Right that is why we aim cars at the enemy in war.

The fact is that every advancement in gun technology has been to increase the accuracy and the lethal qualities of the projectiles. Hey it is just for target practice why not let me have a howitzer?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I'll add to my above posts that not one of you are willing to discuss the fact that many if not most stolen guns were actually sold to the black market and then reported stolen. All I see is people who are not willing to take responsibility for their weapons. If you are a responsible weapon owner, your gun will not be stolen and you should have no problem with my proposal. But if you want to sell your piece than I can see why you might object. Thieves will not target your guns if they don't know you have them. You want the right to own a deadly weapon(s) then take responsibility for your weapon(s).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Right that is why we aim cars at the enemy in war.
> 
> The fact is that every advancement in gun technology has been to increase the accuracy and the lethal qualities of the projectiles. Hey it is just for target practice why not let me have a howitzer?


Oh dream up another one. I'm not talking about weapons of war for God's sake. I'm talking about a .22 or a shotgun or a 30.30 carbine or a .38 pistol. One does not use Howitzers or 50 calibre cannon for anything but war. The weapons I refer to are used for hunting or target practice and nothing more by 99.999% of the people who own them.

How many deaths by car suicides do you figure happen a year? You know, a manic depressive nut behind the wheel of a car headed down the highway and decides to end it all by pulling hard left on the wheel?

Trouble is they, like sickos who shoot people, take others with them.

I know, let's throw that guy/gal's wife/husband in jail too. Make them pay. After all, they owned half the car. 

Geeez.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I know, let's throw that guy/gal's wife/husband in jail too. Make them pay. After all, they owned half the car.
> 
> Geeez.


Again a car is not supposed to be a weapon. A gun is not supposed to be anything other than a weapon. When cars kill people is is usually an accident. When guns kill people it is usually on purpose.Comparisons to cars is silly.

You are still ignoring the fact that people are selling guns on the black market then reporting them stolen.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm referring to responsible gun owners who don't sell guns on the black market. You're confusing those who do with responsible gun owners, when in fact they are criminals.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I'm referring to responsible gun owners who don't sell guns on the black market. You're confusing those who do with responsible gun owners, when in fact they are criminals.


And I said I'm fine with responsible gun owners. Those who make sure their guns don't fall into the wrong hands. 
These people don't brag about their collections so thieves don't target their guns. These people store their guns according to law or even go beyond the legal minimum safeguards to ensure their weapons stay where they belong. If you follow these rules even if you fall victim to a B&E artist they will not have the equipment to steal your gun. Again if you are a responsible gun owner my proposed rules will not affect you. If you are careless or dishonest on the other hand you deserve to be punished. I'm not necessarily saying the original owner should get 20 years for the murder their guns was used for, but maybe 2 years would stop those who are careless and those who sell their guns and report them stolen. Of course if it is proved that you fall into the latter category the charge should be accessory to murder.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

Lloydminister

Straddles the Alberta/Saskatchewan border and acts as a hub for the drug trade that supplies all the rig pigs (+ the usual suspects). Where's there's drugs and money aplenty there's bound to be trouble.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Again if you are a responsible gun owner my proposed rules will not affect you. If you are careless or dishonest on the other hand you deserve to be punished. I'm not necessarily saying the original owner should get 20 years for the murder their guns was used for, but maybe 2 years would stop those who are careless and those who sell their guns and report them stolen. Of course if it is proved that you fall into the latter category the charge should be accessory to murder.


Dream on. No storage is secure from a determined thief. Responsible gun owners would be caught in the same stupid law. I don't know why I even bother with this. No rational thinking parliament would ever even introduce such lunacy. Guilty by former ownership? Just plain foolish.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Dream on. No storage is secure from a determined thief. Responsible gun owners would be caught in the same stupid law. I don't know why I even bother with this. No rational thinking parliament would ever even introduce such lunacy. Guilty by former ownership? Just plain foolish.


The point you refuse to see is that if they don't know you have guns they will not have the equipment on hand to steal your gun. In Toronto and area we've seen a lot of guns stolen from collectors in recent times and the fact is the thieves knew where the guns were and brought equipment to seal them. If you are responsible the thieves won't know you have a collection. As for former ownership? Sorry but I am talking about current ownership. If I steal your gun it is still yours, you still own it. That is what makes it stealing.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Cars are used frequently as weapons, just as a truck was used in Vancouver to kill someone in that wierd road rage, run over a victim because of crazed drug induced anger. I see attempted murders everyday with people doing foolish things with their cars.

As for criminals, the best method is if a convicted criminal is caught in possession of a gun (even if they are not actually committing a crime), they should be executed, in public, along with all of the filthy child molesters, murderers, tailgaters, and drug traffickers. That way, we don't waste money on storing them in some luxurious federal penitentiary where they just spend time plotting more crimes with their little buddies. Then the crime rate will go down like crazy because then, and only then, crime will not pay.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> The point you refuse to see is that if they don't know you have guns they will not have the equipment on hand to steal your gun.


Seriously, I just can't be bothered debating such twisted logic. No court in the land would allow such a flagrant disregard for individual rights. End of story.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Cars are used frequently as weapons, just as a truck was used in Vancouver to kill someone in that wierd road rage, run over a victim because of crazed drug induced anger. I see attempted murders everyday with people doing foolish things with their cars.


Sorry but frequently is not an honest representation here.

{sarcasm}sure you do{/sarcasm}


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Seriously, I just can't be bothered debating such twisted logic. No court in the land would allow such a flagrant disregard for individual rights. End of story.


I see no basis for this argument.
To go back to your car analogy: If you are drunk and I lend you my car and you kill someone with it I am liable.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

from the Dictionary included with Leopard.


> weapon |ˈwepən|
> noun
> a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage : nuclear weapons.


With the above definition axes, hammers, cars, hands and guns are all weapons.

The brainless item is simply an object. Guns don’t kill people is a true statement. 

I think we all can agree a gun is an efficient and effective weapon. Better concealed but less surprising than a car as a weapon.

Perhaps we should comment more responsibly than simply blame crime on people because of their age or because of an object.

Over all crime statistics are going in the right direction. The reason for this thread is irresponsible reporting designed to generate interest in selling magazines and making money for the owners of the media outlet.

Therefore the real dangerous people in the cities of Canada are Capitalists and their ideal of anything for a buck. A simple minded proposition when boiled down to its essence.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

By that definition calling a car a weapon is a stretch.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Does anyone have the statistics for fatalities and injuries of cars vs guns?


Yes, I posted it a few pages ago.

Cars are more deadly per capita than guns.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Yes, I posted it a few pages ago.
> 
> Cars are more deadly per capita than guns.





Vandave said:


> The death rate per 100,000 people due to cars is about 9. The homicide rate for guns is 0.4 per 100,000. About 20% of Canadians own guns. So, the homicide rate per gun would be roughly 2 per 100,000, which is less than a car.
> 
> Thus, your car has a higher chance of killing somebody than a gun (roughly 4 times). You might want to think twice before driving to the store rather than walking.


So, you see, no reason at all, to panic about guns.


----------



## talonracer (Dec 30, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> I have lived in Pigs Gorge, I mean Prince George.
> 
> Unbelievably ******* and violent town. It's like an overgrown logging camp that a shipment of drugs, prostitutes, and booze has just flown in by helicopter.
> .....


Wow. You clearly work for Tourism BC! 

I used to live fairly close to PG and spent a good deal of time there. While in some aspects, yes, it is a ******* town, it also has a pretty cool cultural side to it as well, with independent theatre and music. 

As for the PG girls.... no comment!


----------



## talonracer (Dec 30, 2003)

martman said:


> Hunting is killing. Home protection is killing. Target practice is practice for killing and is NOT the reason guns were made. Hand guns in particular (the ones that kill the most people) are designed to kill people at close range. You can pretend this is not true but deep down you know it is. Make all the excuses you want the purpose of guns are to kill. killing people is why they were invented not target practice.
> 
> The numbers are sobering but they neglect the fact that cars get used more than guns on a day to day basis and they also neglect the plain fact that most gun deaths are homicides and most car deaths are accidents. Cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.
> 
> Your numbers also neglect the question how many stolen cars go on to kill somebody versus how many stolen guns.


Funny.
I've fired countless guns, innumerable times. I've done so while shooting at targets. Was I practicing to kill someone/thing and not know it? I'm trying to see the logic to your argument here, but I'm siding more with Sinc.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> So, you see, no reason at all, to panic about guns.


But it is OK to panic when those guns are being used by gangs of marauding youths in Edmonton where you said the was a shooting incident every night?

So why is it that in Canada, those cities which are most unsafe also happen to be in those regions where gun ownership per capita is highest?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> But it is OK to panic when those guns are being used by gangs of marauding youths in Edmonton where you said the was a shooting incident every night?
> 
> So why is it that in Canada, those cities which are most unsafe also happen to be in those regions where gun ownership per capita is highest?


I'm in no panic about guns. Get that straight. But the punks who carry them every day in Edmonton and elsewhere concern me, yes.

What I am suggesting is that young men involved in gangs who misuse illegal guns, and carry them about on a daily basis, and worse, use them to kill, should be locked up for life if found in possession of an illegal hand gun.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I'm in no panic about guns. Get that straight. But the punks who carry them every day in Edmonton and elsewhere concern me, yes.
> 
> What I am suggesting is that young men involved in gangs who misuse illegal guns, and carry them about on a daily basis, and worse, use them to kill, should be locked up for life if found in possession of an illegal hand gun.


Well you and I are in partial agreement... I'm taking it to the extreme and saying that anyone found in possession of an illegal handgun should be sent away.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Well you and I are in partial agreement... I'm taking it to the extreme and saying that anyone found in possession of an illegal handgun should be sent away.


Agreed, I didn't mean to exclude anyone, but rather was pointing out the main problem in Edmonton and cities in general, including TO by recent news accounts.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> including TO by recent news accounts.


Shhh! Don't upset the center of the universe, they are still in denial.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Yeah, I know this is a two-year-old thread..._ 

Halifax, Nova Scotia has gone loco in the past few months. Twelve shootings in a period of a month - that's just insane for sleepy Haltown. 

Today a judge decided to send a message....



> A Dartmouth judge is doing his part to crack down on gun-related crime, handing a 6½-year prison sentence to a man who climbed into a taxi with a sawed-off shotgun under his coat. ....Hoskins made the remarks during a sentencing hearing for Daniel Redmond Marsman, 28, of Halifax. .... Marsman has been in custody since Sept. 7, when a Dartmouth cab driver wrestled a sawed-off shotgun away from him and beat him into submission on the side of the road in Lawrencetown.
> 
> “You picked the wrong cabbie,” Nevin Slawter said as he overpowered Marsman.
> 
> The gun wasn't loaded, but police found two unspent shells in the back seat of the cab and one on the ground.


(Halifax Chronicle Herald)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> The rash of shootings seem to be related to drug conflicts, which he said are mobile and mean there’s a chance of something happening just about anywhere.


Yep, there's your crime problem. Getting "tough on crime" won't do a damn thing about it. Put 20 gang members in jail, there will be another 50 waiting to get their own guns and make their fantastic profits from drug prohibition.

The lone case of the guy with the shotgun who was beaten up by the cabbie is clearly a case of someone who has a serious untreated mental disease. Putting him in prison won't solve that problem either, he needs to be in a locked hospital and treated, to lessen his chances of re-offending.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yep, there's your crime problem. Getting "tough on crime" won't do a damn thing about it. Put 20 gang members in jail, there will be another 50 waiting to get their own guns and make their fantastic profits from drug prohibition.


That's only true if the rewards outweigh the risks. If the rewards are worth the risks, then you haven't even started being tough yet. How about mandatory life in prison with no chance of parole on the first offense for things like auto theft or use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. Think there'd still be 50 more lining up to take their place then?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> That's only true if the rewards outweigh the risks. If the rewards are worth the risks, then you haven't even started being tough yet. How about mandatory life in prison with no chance of parole on the first offense for things like auto theft or use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. Think there'd still be 50 more lining up to take their place then?


Life in prison with no chance of parole for an auto theft? Really?

Well, it's true that drug prohibition can be successful if you're willing to turn your society into a police state, if that's what you desire. 

And I suppose the Conservatives are more than willing to ask Canadians for the untold billions that this level of enforcement, prosecution and incarceration would cost? The level of expense would have to be quite high, they already spend far more than we do in the US being "tough on crime" and it hasn't really accomplished anything, has it? 3 strikes you're out and long prison sentences for drug offences hasn't stemmed the tide much at all. 

Or if you want to avoid the immense cost, you could just empower the police to act as judge, jury and executioner, like they do in real totalitarian regimes. Now that might actually scare off some of the crooks from indulging in the violent world of drug trafficking, but I doubt if that's the kind of society many of us would like to live in.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Life in prison with no parole for auto theft_ - yep, no question; keeping a whole new raft of people incarcerated for life would cost us dearly. I can just imagine that line item on the annual gubbmint budget. It'd blow healthcare out of the water!

Might appeal to stern justice types but won't do much for fiscal conservatives who hate being robbed blind with rapacious taxes intended to support inefficient services.

Better to cut off hands, feet, genitalia, that sort of thing. Quick and easy! No more wide-spread theft. Prolly see a lot more "differently abled" types hanging around street corners for awhile, looking for change... but hey, that's the price of progress.


----------



## frandavis (May 1, 2010)

Sorry to say, There is no any dangerous city in C.A.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

There isn't a place on Earth that has a significant population that doesn't have a "crime problem".


----------

