Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Though do you count those guns that people didn't register 20 years ago as bad ones because they were also illegal, or good ones because you consider it a bad law? And does it make any difference that a lot of those bad guns got stolen because people had them legally in the first place?

I'm not following what you're saying here.  I'm not opposed to registering all firearms but as a compromise I'd like to see certain restrictions recinded.

Pondering wrote:
 I get your point on traveling with a weapon but when I was a kid we had to have bike licences. I don't see why registration should be arduous or expensive for regular guns.

In this case you would have 1 licence for your bike to drive around town but if your bike was black or had a basket then you're only allowed to drive your bike at the local bike park. If you have flames painted on your bike then you have to keep your bik at home on display in your garage :)

I'm personally not opposed to registering all guns. The last time they did it, the long gun registry which cost over 2 billion dollars, was a total fuck up.  I was constantly getting sent the wrong registration cards with the wrong information and having to request new ones set (at a cost of $10 each).Finally gave up.

I think the biggest problem people have with registering long guns is that they're worried the government will decide X rifle is illegal and you have one week to turn them in to the RCMP or you'll go to jail if you're caught with it.

You should read about High River Alberta. During the floods the RCMP used illegally kept records of firearms that were suposed to be destroyed and used them to break into peoples houses to look for firearms.  They denied it and said they were looking for survivors (which im sure in some cases they were) but the police returned to firearm owners houses multiple times in some cases to "look for people" and finally discover and confiscate guns. Non gun owners houses were only visted once.

Quote:

Polticians wold be worse so what would you suggest? That is who should determine gun classifications?

Good point. Politicans could very well be worse I agree BUT the point is politicians are voted into office by us citizens.  We put them in office and, ideally, our nations laws should be a reflection of what we as a society want (ie pot being legalized).  It's a conflict of interest to have police make the laws then turn around and enforce them.  Police shouldn't make the laws, soldiers shouldn't decide when to go to war, maybe teachers shouldn't decide school cirriculum?

I'm not a fan of any politician but we can vote them out of office if they're all fucked up. Imagine if police decided the law should be such that they can randomly stop you on the street, search your person and vehicle and cell phone? they make that law then enforce it? Not good.

Quote:

Are there ways to make the laws more effective in preventing the misuse of firearms including for crime?

Nothing will prevent the misuse of firearms but it can be mitigated I think. I'd move to register every firearm while removing the classification system. Some other changes but primairily try and shift the feeling of gun owners that they're scrutinized more than criminals to being partners with law enforcement to combat crime. Not physically but reporting and tips. I called the RCMP once to report a guy trying to buy a gun without a licence and the RCMP totally treated me like shit, I couldn't believe it.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
On the other hand it seems that gun control laws that make it easier to take guns away from jealous ex-husbands who have threatened the lives of their ex-wives could be very effective at lowering homicide rates.

If you want to make it harder for them to legally purchase a gun, OK.  Not sure how we'll go about identifying "jealous ex-husbands", but let's give it the ol' college try.

But if we can do that, why can't we seem to do the same for gang members?  Do jealous ex-husbands just have a big red asterisk on their foreheads?  Or are legal guns not really the problem?  If, as you suggest, "gangs are very adept at getting around gun control laws", is there anything we can do about that, or have they just rightfully won?

I think the best way to deal with gang crime is to reduce poverty and also legalize what is currently illicit drug use.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
On the other hand it seems that gun control laws that make it easier to take guns away from jealous ex-husbands who have threatened the lives of their ex-wives could be very effective at lowering homicide rates.

I've surely asked before, but I'll ask again:  do you think that gang members' goal is to be able to afford a 2008 Ford Taurus and a 25 year mortgage on a semi-detached townhouse?

I guess what I really mean is, "do you think that what you're suggesting is what gang members actually want?"

If you're not confident that's what they're after then why would you think it would satisfy them?

6079_Smith_W

What I am saying Paladin is that if you make a distinction about stolen guns (presumably because they are illegal) those guns that were left unregistered in the 90s should be in the same pile because they were just as illegal.

And Magoo, there is a provision about jealous exes. It is in section C and D of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate. You have to declare if you have had a recent relationship breakdown, and there are a number of other things you must declare too. Problem is that there are a number of things someone could easily lie about. And self diagnosis? How many fulltime alcoholics are going to admit they are alcoholics?

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592-eng.pdf

 

6079_Smith_W

A good resource for those who don't think there is a racial element to this. And it is interesting that the highest rates of police shootings per capita are in Alaska and New Mexico, and the highest rate by race of those killed are Indigenous people:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-count...

And Sunday, another unarmed black person shot 20 times by police (who then asked him to respond so they could help him).

Vermont does not have the lowest rate of firearm death in the U.S. It is about middle of the pack, and just over the national average. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_b...

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And Magoo, there is a provision about jealous exes. It is in section C and D of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate. You have to declare if you have had a recent relationship breakdown, and there are a number of other things you must declare too. Problem is that there are a number of things someone could easily lie about. And self diagnosis? How many fulltime alcoholics are going to admit they are alcoholics?

I'm told by police that when they run your name in their computer it comes up if you have a firearms licence or there are firearms registered to your residence (like handguns). They say it can be a bad though because someone might have a gun that the police don't know about and it can make rookie cops less careful. If someone with a firearms licence gets in shit then it's redflagged right away by the Chief Firearms Office (CFO) and that office can revoke someones gun licence and the police can confiscate registered firearms. I'm not sure if there is a specific criteria for that though, I would assume that domestic assault and such would be an obvious one.

The problem with mental health, well one of them, is that there is no warning system like that. If I was admitted to the hospital for whatever then someone in the health care system would have to go out of their way to call the CFO and bring up a public safety concern about me. And I don't actually know if they're allowed to do that or it would be some kind of privacy violation.  I would like to see a better system to track people with mental illness when firearms are present, but that can be a slippery slope too because mental illness covers a wide spectrum.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And Sunday, another unarmed black person shot 20 times by police (who then asked him to respond so they could help him).

Would you happen to have a link to this story?

Quote:

Vermont does not have the lowest rate of firearm death in the U.S. It is about middle of the pack, and just over the national average.

Correct it does not have the lowest rate of firearm death in the US.  One should note that 2/3 of those deaths are from suicide and not gun violence.  Vermont is still second lowest in terms of violent assaults, which I surmise is due to the large number of armed people.

6079_Smith_W

Mental illness and depression is also covered in the FAC. You are supposed to declare.

And it has been all over the news. They covered it on The Current this morning. He was shot in his grandmother's back yard with a cellphone in his hand.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stephon-clark-shooting-sacramen...

What do you think suicide is if not gun violence? Especially when you consider that it is often MURDER suicide, FFS.

 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Mental illness and depression is also covered in the FAC. You are supposed to declare.

You're supposed to declare it but I imagine many people don't.

Thanks for the link I'll take a look.

 

Quote:
What do you think suicide is if not gun violence? Especially when you consider that it is often MURDER suicide, FFS.

When I think of gun violence I think of it as crime related (yes suicide is illegal but you know what I mean)  but you're right it looks like suicides fall under the definition of gun violence.

I don't think you're correct that suicides are often murder suicides.

6079_Smith_W

Yup. Many people don't declare a lot of that stuff, but they are in the FAC. The spousal thing is a bit harder to get around because they are required to sign or be informed by the police. I mentioned it because of Magoo's request.

Not only is it violence, it is also an issue of considerable importance to rural people. If there is not a gun present or easily available there is less likelihood that a man is going to kill himself:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984734/

And rural stress and suicide is a big issue (just to coax this a little bit back to the original issue of the welface of rural people).

Paladin1

I'm trying to understand the context of you mentioning that shooting.  Another unarmed blackman killed by police. Looks like a justified shooting to me. And the link you sent of stats says cops shoot twice as many white men as black men when you look at the total?

I agree suicide is a big issue and concern. I think there needs to be a bigger responsibility for family members and friends to get involved. Both to try and get them medical attention and to remove dangerous things like firearms. I wouldn't use suicide as a reason to prevent citizens from owning or having access to guns.

6079_Smith_W

I am not sure why this is unclear.

Police have committed plenty of racist murders. Bad cops are a big part of this violence.

They still have a better professional understanding of the risks than lay people do. Just as while some doctors and lawyers also commit abuses, their professional judgment carries weight - as I said, on the question of home appendectomies, or the wisdom of representing yourself in court.

What is worse than police violence? The violence we would have to deal with if there were NO police there, and it was just civilians shooting it out.

How can you justify police shooting to kill someone running away over a call of breaking windows? Your stance on shooting thieves is bad enough. What do you need to see to get that it is not okay to murder people? Seriously, how can you justify them shooting 20 times in a residential area when they don't even know if it is the right person who was breaking windows? I would really like to hear your rationale on this one.

The per capita rate of killing non-whites is far higher. You got that, right?

And again the assumption that this is good and bad people, and good and bad weapons. It isn't. More weapons being picked up means a greater chance of death, no matter who is using them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What do you think suicide is if not gun violence? Especially when you consider that it is often MURDER suicide, FFS.

Murder suicide is two different things with one name.

Obviously, if you shoot someone else with a gun, that's murder (or manslaughter, if you have a good lawyer).  At any rate, that should certainly be included with gun violence statistics.

But harming only yourself, with a gun?  I guess that's "gun violence" the way hanging yourself is "rope violence".  I'm not saying it's not an issue.  But there's ZERO need to lump it in with someone shooting someone else.  It's just not even comparable.

If your neighbour is likely to shoot himself with a gun, that's a bit of problem.

If your neighbour is likely to shoot a neighbour with a gun, that's really a whole different problem, and I think it's the one we're really talking about when we talk about gun deaths.

6079_Smith_W

It's violent death Magoo. Violent death that would have been less likely if there was no gun there. It is an example of how if you have a gun around, there is a far greater chance of death. And in the case of suicide it is documented.

It is also most certainly why thoughts of suicide and depression is one of the things flagged on the FAC form. It is also why it is an issue important to rural well-being.

Again, trying to parse this as good people and bad people and good guns and bad guns and criminal death or not is avoiding the simple fact that the end result of having them around it more intimidation, more injury and  more death. 

And that is far increased if you tell people they should be solving problems with them.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It's violent death Magoo.

So's hanging yourself or jumping in front of a subway car.

Again, I'm not saying it's not a concern.  I'm saying that harming yourself is NOT the same as harming others.  Not sure why you think they should be statistically lumped together.  That's all I've been saying:  the numbers don't need to be added together, even if it makes guns look more dangerous.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

How can you justify police shooting to kill someone running away over a call of breaking windows? Your stance on shooting thieves is bad enough. What do you need to see to get that it is not okay to murder people? Seriously, how can you justify them shooting 20 times in a residential area when they don't even know if it is the right person who was breaking windows? I would really like to hear your rationale on this one.

Sure thing. Police got a call over breaking windows but that doesn't mean the person running away isn't a rapist or murderer who doesn't want to get caught. I bring your attention to this story.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/us/missouri-police-killed-wrong-house/ind...

Officer Chris Morton was dispatched to the wrong house via 911 call. When he entered to do a mandatory 911 welfare check the man who was hiding (after the woman answering the door said she was alone) shot and killed him.

The man in your story was running away from the police, not stopping when they told him to stop AND apparently didn't show the police what he had in his hands. When they seen something in his hands, they shot him. Once again I can post a number of videos of police officers being shot in very nearly identical situations.  I'm not sure if I would have shot in the same situation, not being there and all, but the surrounding factors seem solid enough to justify shooting.

I can post a video of a black man being shot when he reached for his wallet after the police told him they wanted to see ID, cop fucked up. There's also videos of police pulling over black men who tell the cop they have handguns on them and theres no problems. I think you're a little quick to automatically assume this guy was shot because of racisim.  Do you realize how hard it is to see a handgun in someones hand at night while they're running away? But maybe the cops did screw up.  I'll wait for the investigation before passing judgement. 

Quote:

The per capita rate of killing non-whites is far higher. You got that, right?

Yup.

Quote:

And again the assumption that this is good and bad people, and good and bad weapons. It isn't. More weapons being picked up means a greater chance of death, no matter who is using them.

Maybe. Not committing crime and robbing people will reduce 99% of break and enter shootings. I don't think I have the right to tell someone they can't use a gun to defend themselves.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, but as I already pointed out, having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of suicide of any kind.

I know there's a running trend here to ignore the reality of this, but yes, this is another example of people being killed - permanently and for real, and leaving traumatized people behind to clean up the real and psychological mess - because there are guns around.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It's violent death Magoo.

So's hanging yourself or jumping in front of a subway car.

Again, I'm not saying it's not a concern.  I'm saying that harming yourself is NOT the same as harming others.  Not sure why you think they should be statistically lumped together.  That's all I've been saying:  the numbers don't need to be added together, even if it makes guns look more dangerous.

Yea I find it a little weird too.

75%-80% of firearm deaths in Canada are from suicide.

6079_Smith_W

And Paladin, that is absolutely batshit crazy.

Just shoot the first guy you see running away because he might have done something?

And because every black person who gets pulled over isn't shot dead that means we can ignore the stats that they are far more likely to be targetted than whites?

And yes, if there had been fewer guns around some of that 75 to 80 percent would still be here.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes, but as I already pointed out, having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of suicide of any kind.

I'm not asking this to be snarky, but are you saying that having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of suicide by other means than that gun?

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And Paladin, that is absolutely batshit crazy.

Just shoot the first guy you see running away because he might have done something?

I'm guessing they might need positive ID or something,  I don't know. Police can also shoot someone whos unarmed and running away in the back under certain criteria.

Quote:
And because every black person who gets pulled over isn't shot dead that means we can ignore the stats that they are far more likely to be targetted than whites?

No, why would you ignore it?

Quote:

And yes, if there had been fewer guns around some of that 75 to 80 percent would still be here.

Yea firearms work better than cutting your wrist or pills. More finale? I'm not sure the word. I think more people would be around if people weren't afraid to get involved and be the "bad guy". People with a history of mental illness or who are suffering from certain forms of mental illness shouldn't have access to guns.

6079_Smith_W

I posted the study upthread.  Here it is:

Results. State-level firearm ownership was associated with an increase in both male and female firearm-related suicide rates and with a decrease in nonfirearm-related suicide rates. Higher gun ownership was associated with higher suicide rates by any means among male, but not among female, persons.

Conclusions. We found a strong relationship between state-level firearm ownership and firearm suicide rates among both genders, and a relationship between firearm ownership and suicides by any means among male, but not female, individuals.

Policy implications. For male persons, policies that reduce firearm ownership will likely reduce suicides by all means and by firearms. For female persons, such policies will likely reduce suicides by firearms.

So yes, a gun in the house means a higher likelihood of suicide by all means for men, and by gun for women.

 

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
On the other hand it seems that gun control laws that make it easier to take guns away from jealous ex-husbands who have threatened the lives of their ex-wives could be very effective at lowering homicide rates.

I've surely asked before, but I'll ask again:  do you think that gang members' goal is to be able to afford a 2008 Ford Taurus and a 25 year mortgage on a semi-detached townhouse?

I guess what I really mean is, "do you think that what you're suggesting is what gang members actually want?"

If you're not confident that's what they're after then why would you think it would satisfy them?

It might not satisfy them now but poor neighbourhoods generate more gang members and thieves than wealthy neighbourhoods. (It seems middle class and above prefer mass shooting)

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, but as I already pointed out, having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of suicide of any kind.

I know there's a running trend here to ignore the reality of this, but yes, this is another example of people being killed - permanently and for real, and leaving traumatized people behind to clean up the real and psychological mess - because there are guns around.

Yes and the accidental shootings of children by children are particularly tragic. Gun ownership certainly increases accidental deaths and murders and suicides. 

I really don't get what you are arguing in favor of. What do you want that isn't already the case? 

Yes of course racism is a factor and the associated deep poverty of some FN people componded by the destruction of family structure etc.. 

It's just difficult to filter the general down to the specific. It isn't possible to prove (or disprove) Gerald Stanley being influenced by race. Same goes for the jury, which is why it is so important to have a balanced jury. 

Although a jury is supposed to be a jury of the accused peers not the victims peers. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

If 50% of people being shot by police in the United States are white and 50% are black then it is not even. Black people represent only 12.7% of the population so black people are being disproportionately shot by the police.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I really don't get what you are arguing in favor of. What do you want that isn't already the case? 

I think he's suggesting by banning guns then suicide rates will drop.

I caught a disturbing video of a young teenager shooting himself in the head with a shotgun. Horrific. I don't like to tell people how to run their lives but I get the feeling people out west, for a varity of reasons, aren't as strict on how they store their firearms. I'd like to see an educational awarness campaign about locking firearms up.  Parents being involved in their kids lives is super important too. Again not to judge but I'm amazed at when I bring my kids swimming, gymnastics, soccer, dance at how many parents have their faces burried in their phones the whole time. Kids looking back to see their parents and parents are facebooking or taking selfies.

 

Quote:
It isn't possible to prove (or disprove) Gerald Stanley being influenced by race. Same goes for the jury, which is why it is so important to have a balanced jury.

It's not however from the moment it happened he was automatically accused of racisim. And the feeling that I got was that "of course a white jury will be racist".

Quote:

Although a jury is supposed to be a jury of the accused peers not the victims peers.

A very important distinction which seems lost to many.

6079_Smith_W

Actually we already went over what "peers" meant.

It doesn't mean a wall of white people, even if the original coinage of the term was an elitist statement by a member of the British House of Lords.

n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079

And it doesn't mean that the white guy's lawyer gets to shut out all the Indigenous people either.

 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And it doesn't mean that the white guy's lawyer gets to shut out all the Indigenous people either.

 

Nor does it mean the jury has to include them.

6079_Smith_W

Actually that is precisely what it means, if they are drawn fairly from the pool.
And what I find kind of fucked up is the belief that the defendant's and the victim's peers are somehow different. I don't know what you call it, but I know what I do.

As the definition states "peers" means a random sampling from the community. Nothing more.

JKR

There are systemic reasons that decrease the participation rate of indigenous people from juries like higher poverty rates, greater felony rates, and often living further away from court houses. One in six people in Saskatchewan identify as indigenous so a jury of 12 people there should on average have just 2 jurors to begin with but with systemic issues, as cited above, those numbers go down. So even without racist tactics by lawyers, many juries in Saskatchewan will often have no indigenous jurors or just one juror. So, systemically, indigenous people are at a disadvantage within our judicial system and this is very troubling considering the very high rates of indigenous people who are defendants in our judicial system. I think all Indigenous defendants should be guaranteed a representative jury. It seems to me very unfair to have an indigenous defendant found guilty by 12 white (also often upper middle class) jurors.

6079_Smith_W

@ JKR

I agree in principle. Even those odds are better than what some of these people get when lawyers start gaming the process to their advantage, though.

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ JKR

I agree in principle. Even those odds are better than what some of these people get when lawyers start gaming the process to their advantage, though.

 

I think the recommendations Murray Sinclair's team will make will point in the right direction.

JKR

I think the Trudeau government should be congratulated for appointing Murray Sinclair to the Senate. This is one example of how the Trudeau Liberals are much better than the Conservatives.

Paladin1

Unfortinuately I haven't been able to find the source I got those numbers from about the US dropping from 3rd to 90th ish in shooting deaths if those 5 cities were dropped so I'll recind my statement regarding that.

cco

That was over in this thread, Paladin. Thanks for the correction.

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
Vermont is still second lowest in terms of violent assaults, which I surmise is due to the large number of armed people.

I always thought Vermont's low rate of violent assaults was because it tends to get more consistent snow in the winter than many other states

Pondering

Firearm ownership alone isn't the deciding factor. It couples with culture just like mass shooters and serial killers. Some cultures create more than others. 

Paladin1

cco wrote:

That was over in this thread, Paladin. Thanks for the correction.

 

Thanks. Going forward I'll keep better track of sources to lend more credibility to the debate.

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Firearm ownership alone isn't the deciding factor. It couples with culture just like mass shooters and serial killers. Some cultures create more than others. 

Might as well say it. White. Male.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Firearm ownership alone isn't the deciding factor. It couples with culture just like mass shooters and serial killers. Some cultures create more than others. 

Might as well say it. White. Male.

 

What are you talking about?

6079_Smith_W

Most are white (though statistically even). Virtually all are men.

This is an interesting breakdown - pointing out discrepancies between regular murder and mass murder, and who commits those mass murders in very public places.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/10/what_th...

So one thing for sure about white killers - they sure seem to like to show off.

 

Paladin1

So what demograpic is the leading one when it comes to regular (for lack of a better term) firearm murders in the US? White males again I presume?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What about, say, Toronto?

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What about, say, Toronto?

 

A little while ago there was an article that came out by Dr Natasha Saunders about how one child was injured by firearms every day in Canada.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/one-child-or-youth-suffers-firearm-injury-...

Whoa!

People spun, of course. Other people looked into the research a little deeper. The "kids" went up to the age of 24 and the study included BB guns, airsoft guns (which you can shoot yourself in the face with and it leaves a welt), paintball guns. They also discovered a significant number of these firearms injuries were stemming from a specific demographic out of the GTA.

Pondering

From the Slate article:

Most significantly, Mother Jones defined “mass shootings” as only those that took place in public settings. USA Today went with a broader definition of “mass killings,” including any with four or more victims. Public massacres like the one in Las Vegas represent just one-sixth of this larger data set.

When lay-people are discussing mass murder they mean public mass murder or maybe serial killers. I think it is terrible when someone kills their entire family but it doesn't threaten me. Public mass murder and serial killing is dominated by white men. 

In my opinion the primary factor by far is culture not colour or sex. 

6079_Smith_W

When it comes to regular shootings I'd say economic advantage is a major factor, but that is very much tied in with race. Who gets pressured to join gangs? Racial and social groups who have suffered systemic oppression. It has always been that way, and it still takes it back to a problem that is created by the white majority.

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

When lay-people are discussing mass murder they mean public mass murder or maybe serial killers. I think it is terrible when someone kills their entire family but it doesn't threaten me. Public mass murder and serial killing is dominated by white men. 

In my opinion the primary factor by far is culture not colour or sex. 

When we spoke about police shootings in the states it was brought up that even though police shot and killed twice as many white males as they did black males the latter makes up only 13% of the population so they were disproportionately effected. Fair enough. With white males being the majority of Canada are mass murders and serial killings a white culture thing or simply because numerically they're more represented?  

3 out of the last 5 mass murderers in Canada were white.   

In the last 10 years there have been 7 mass murders of 3+ people in a country of 36 million with an estimated 10 million guns or 31 guns per 100 people.  2 of the mass murders were with a knife and crossbow. Without race being a consideration I'm more concerned of catching a stray bullet in a gang-related shooting in major cities than I am mass murderers or serial killers.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

When lay-people are discussing mass murder they mean public mass murder or maybe serial killers. I think it is terrible when someone kills their entire family but it doesn't threaten me. Public mass murder and serial killing is dominated by white men. 

In my opinion the primary factor by far is culture not colour or sex. 

When we spoke about police shootings in the states it was brought up that even though police shot and killed twice as many white males as they did black males the latter makes up only 13% of the population so they were disproportionately effected. Fair enough. With white males being the majority of Canada are mass murders and serial killings a white culture thing or simply because numerically they're more represented?  

3 out of the last 5 mass murderers in Canada were white.   

In the last 10 years there have been 7 mass murders of 3+ people in a country of 36 million with an estimated 10 million guns or 31 guns per 100 people.  2 of the mass murders were with a knife and crossbow. Without race being a consideration I'm more concerned of catching a stray bullet in a gang-related shooting in major cities than I am mass murderers or serial killers.

I'm not sure what your point is. That minorities kill people too, or kill more people? That doesn't negate the fact that most public mass murders, like in schools etc. are being perpetrated by white men, many of them very young. That can't be ignored when looking for causes which are at the root of prevention. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That doesn't negate the fact that most public mass murders, like in schools etc. are being perpetrated by white men, many of them very young.

That's true.  Most mass murders are committed by white men, with a few exceptions -- men of colour, but not white women or women of colour.

Most serial killers are white men, and the countries that punch above their weight in this regard are the U.S., the UK, Germany and Russia.  The sole exception I can think of would be Aileen Wuornos.  But even she's still white and American.

But what's this have to do with gun deaths overall?  Are we similarly eager to look at sex/race/country variables on the rest and let the chips fall where they may?

I don't get the sense that the gun deaths here in Toronto align with our demographic breakdown all that well.  If I point out "mostly men" then that's no problem.  If I were to suggest an ethnicity for most of those men, is that cool?  Can we just talk about this honestly -- which is surely the only way we'll ever change it -- or is sex the only thing we can ethically discuss?

Paladin1

xx

6079_Smith_W

As I saw in a much circulated meme, if bullying was the root cause of these shootings you'd see predominantly LGBT killers, non-white killers, and women killers.

But that isn't who is doing it.

 

Pages