News   Jul 31, 2024
 719     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
 700     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
 526     0 

Jane Creba Trial: JSR Charged, Controversy!

Of course not everyone should be armed, in fact I would say that very few people should even be able to. But if someone is competent and qualified, then why not?

In very few situations are the police able to save a victim of a crime before it happens, such as that family in Oshawa that was stabbed to death last week, by the time the police made it to the scene it was already to late, I'm sure the dead victims think the police put their guns to good use by shooting the criminal after they had all been stabbed.

There are many other 'tools' you can use to defend yourself, like a dagger, steel-toed boots, budo, etc. You only really need a gun if your attacker has a gun. So it seems to me that it is better idea to prevent people from having handguns altogether.
 
I've always thought that a weak argument against the death penalty. Just like the death penalty, the threat of prison does not deter certain people from doing certain crimes.

The death penalty is not about deterence, is about threat elimination. A violent dog doesn't fear Animal Control's leathal needle when it considers attacking and killing a person...it simply does it. Those that commit first degree murder are no better than the violent dogs we put to death every year.

Quite right, some people are just animals and need to be "put down" also.

If this was Singapore, everyone involved would been executed simply for firing their guns, let alone killing someone.
 
Exactly the kind of thinking that is needed in this country, what criminal would risk committing robbery or rape if they stood a good chance of being shot to death by their victim?

Uh, yeah. Because nobody ever commits robbery or rape in the land of the Second Amendment.
 
There are many other 'tools' you can use to defend yourself, like a dagger, steel-toed boots, budo, etc. You only really need a gun if your attacker has a gun. So it seems to me that it is better idea to prevent people from having handguns altogether.

How is a small weak woman supposed to defend herself from a 250 pound male attacker with anything less than a firearm? And no, more gun control will not reduce crime, it has not worked anywhere else and it will not work here.

Uh, yeah. Because nobody ever commits robbery or rape in the land of the Second Amendment.

Uh, yeah. that's why I said, 'if the criminals stood a good enough chance', and was referring to the post that said, allow everyone to carry concealed firearms and let the people suss it out, the key word being everyone. If everyone was able to defend themselves then it would be a huge deterrence to criminals. Not that I want everyone to be packing.
 
Uh, yeah. that's why I said, 'if the criminals stood a good enough chance', and was referring to the post that said, allow everyone to carry concealed firearms and let the people suss it out, the key word being everyone. If everyone was able to defend themselves then it would be a huge deterrence to criminals. Not that I want everyone to be packing.


does this work in places where people are given these freedoms? don't forget that easier access to guns means more people can get guns, including people who want to commit crimes and people who end up committing crimes because they have a gun. sometimes, just about anyone can lose their cool and freakout. owning a gun increases the chance that you might do something you could regret when you come to your senses.
 
Jesus, more guns is the worst idea i can think of. For every one scenario where some woman uses a pistol to fend of a gorilla, there are dozens more of people who go temporarily insane and kill someone they know. At best you would get a situation like the subway vigilante, the guy who thought it was a smart idea to 'protect' himself from some thugs on the NYC Subway and nearly shot off a bystander's head (who woulda thought firing a gun on a crowded subway train was a bad idea?) or that dumb ass who shot the pedestrian near the Brass Rail to prove his balls. At worst you return to a state of war of everyone against everyone. The simple reality is most people will never be properly trained to protect themselves from armed assailants and quite likely pose more of a threat to themselves and those around them then the assailant.

Even if they were trained, the liability is huge. It is the same reason why the "Guardian Angels" was a bad idea; even if they succeed they still fail. Say, theoretically, you get some Delta Force citizens cap a would be mugger, then what? They would be guilty of at least excessive force if not manslaughter. If they screwed up and shot a bystander, then they are incredibly screwed. At least with police when they screw up (and even with years of training, they do screw up) there is a well understood legal procedure to determine liability and protect both the police officer and the victim. If a private citizen did it, even with the best intentions, he is legally still a thug that will go to jail.

If anything, our gun charges aren't stiff enough. As I said earlier, most people convicted of a violent crime were previously convicted of a violent offense and are often on bail or parole. In any case, if you are caught with a gun and have even one prior charge, it should be life in "pound me in the ass" prison somewhere in Nunavut with exceptions only in the most extenuating circumstances. Not 'my daddy left the house when i was 4', i mean like if he was being chased by a pack of wolves.

EDIT: Wasn't the Jane Creba Shooting the result of a gang shootout to start with? Technically, the shooter was just 'protecting' himself. If everyone had guns, we would just have more shootouts in public places and more innocent bystanders getting hit by way of most people who carry a gun for safety are pretty stupid.
 
Last edited:
does this work in places where people are given these freedoms? don't forget that easier access to guns means more people can get guns, including people who want to commit crimes and people who end up committing crimes because they have a gun. sometimes, just about anyone can lose their cool and freakout. owning a gun increases the chance that you might do something you could regret when you come to your senses.

It has been shown to work. In all most every US state that has passed concealed carry laws, crime rates have dropped, some figures show by as much as 20%. Each time one of those laws was passed, there was a chorus of people claiming that it would lead to blood in the streets, or shootouts over parking spaces and minor fender benders would turn in murders ect. But that never happened.

What has happened, is that hundreds of people each year are able to save their own lives by just threatening the attacker with a firearm, very rarely does a person have to actually fire, let alone kill in self defense.

In most US states/cities, and even other countries, such as Chicago, D.C. England ect, that have brought in tough gun laws/bans, crime and murder rates are higher and have gone up since those laws. The thing that people seem to forget is that a person who is intent on doing harm will find a way to do it, regardless of what the law says, that is why they are called criminals, and guns are not the problem.

There was even a time in this country when people where able to carry handguns, and there was no war between everyone or vigilanteism or mass shootings left right and center.


If you had any knowledge or training in use of force in self defense, then you would know how little of an effect pepper spray can have on a person, and you would also know that pepper spray is prohibited in canada. In fact, carrying anything with the intent of using it for violence, (including self defense) is illegal.
 
If anything, our gun charges aren't stiff enough. As I said earlier, most people convicted of a violent crime were previously convicted of a violent offense and are often on bail or parole. In any case, if you are caught with a gun and have even one prior charge, it should be life in "pound me in the ass" prison somewhere in Nunavut with exceptions only in the most extenuating circumstances. Not 'my daddy left the house when i was 4', i mean like if he was being chased by a pack of wolves.

I completely agree, If people where being punished adequately enough in the first place, then events like the jane creba shooting would not be happening. How many times do we hear in the news of people being arrested with a gun and having multiple weapons prohibition orders against them? too often.

The only person convicted so far in that shooting will most likely be sentenced as a young offender, which means he will be out in a few years and no one will ever know his name. How is that supposed to deter crime?
 
How is a small weak woman supposed to defend herself from a 250 pound male attacker with anything less than a firearm? And no, more gun control will not reduce crime, it has not worked anywhere else and it will not work here.

Hmm. Then why are countries in Europe with gun control enjoying murder rates a tiny fraction of those in the United States?
 
If you had any knowledge or training in use of force in self defense, then you would know how little of an effect pepper spray can have on a person, and you would also know that pepper spray is prohibited in canada. In fact, carrying anything with the intent of using it for violence, (including self defense) is illegal.

When did pepper spray become illegal in Canada? Must have been recently. I understood it was legal to purchase and carry it for personal protection against aggressive dogs, should the aggressor attack me first.
 
Having more guns will do nothing...and even with all the crime, the only city that has seen a huge increase in gun ownership due to crime is....

Calgary... :rolleyes:


However though Canadians views towards the justice system have gotten way more conservative in recent years due to this brazen crime.
I think a lot of people have tossed out their "liberal" idealistic views towards justice, because clearly it is not working.

It must be noted we can say all we want about crime going down, but it is undeniable that random public crime is going up and that is something that we can never tolerate in our society.

It is one thing for criminals to kill criminals in their own hell holes, but if they bring out such things into these public places, crime can go down by half, but people's sense of security will go way down.
 
Hmm. Then why are countries in Europe with gun control enjoying murder rates a tiny fraction of those in the United States?
To be fair, if you compare the murder rate amongst the European population of the USA I think you'll find it is closer, but still not equal, to the murder rate in Europe.

For example, in 2004 there were 14,121 murders in the USA. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html Of those victims, only 6,929 were of European origin (AKA white). The White population of the USA in 2006 was 74% or 221.3 million. So, that's 6,929 white people murdered out of total of 221.3 million, approximately 3.1 murders per 100,000 people.

In 2005, in Germany there were 794 murders among 82 million citizens (0.97 murders per 100,000), and has been on a steady but slow increase http://atlanticreview.org/archives/434-Murder-Rate-in-the-United-States-and-Germany.html

I think you'll find that in most countries, Europeans are disproportionally not involved in murders, as as victim or murderer. Homicide is a very racially defined crime in the USA, and to a lesser extent Canada, due to the poverty and socially broken communities many minority groups live in, especially in the USA. Thus, if we're going to compare the crime rates in the US or Canada to Europe, then we must look at the Europeans in isolation in the US or Canada.
 
The court is now hearing that JSR had a "cavalier" attitude toward Jane Creba's death. The 21-year old was convicted of second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault and five weapons charges. The crown wants him sentenced as an adult. The defence lawyers, of course, want him sentenced as a youth.
What I just found out is that JSR has 2 kids, 4 and 7. My math says he was just 14 when he had his first one. And the defense wants JSR treated as a youth? If he is adult enough to have kids (not one, but two), he is adult enough to serve his time as an adult.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top