|
|
03-23-2017, 02:37 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,885
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman
I disagree, take someones hand for stealing or being in possession of stolen property and you will reduce the theft rate.
If they cut the hands off of those who steal or were caught in possession of stolen property, crime rates would drop. I don't think you could ever eliminate theft, but you sure as hell can reduce the rate of it.
I wonder what the theft rate is in places like Saudi Arabia. I'm sure some internet wizard will be able to figure it out.
BW
|
We're talking two different things.
1.) Castle law allows you to protect your property with whatever force required, with little (or no) consequences on the property owner.
2.) Cutting someone's hand off, would be punishment for a crime which they are found guilty of.
I agree with you on #2. Yes it would reduce thefts.
Most of these thefts are not armed robberies, 9 out of 10 times they are already waiting til the homeowner leaves the property. So castle law would do nothing, aside from prevent those rare armed invasions/robberies.
Whereas #2 (increasing punishment) would definitely change things.
You're right, it wouldn't eliminate theft, but it would reduce it.
|
03-23-2017, 02:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 2,387
|
|
Saudia Arabia is low - 2.8 thefts per 100000 people. (as reported to police).
Of course, Japan is close to them at 4, so not sure about the validity of your argument.
The Vatican reports at 0. I also question the validity of the chart
Cheers
__________________
~Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths.~
|
03-23-2017, 02:48 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,136
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB_AOL
We're talking two different things.
1.) Castle law allows you to protect your property with whatever force required, with little (or no) consequences on the property owner.
2.) Cutting someone's hand off, would be punishment for a crime which they are found guilty of.
I agree with you on #2. Yes it would reduce thefts.
Most of these thefts are not armed robberies, 9 out of 10 times they are already waiting til the homeowner leaves the property. So castle law would do nothing, aside from prevent those rare armed invasions/robberies.
Whereas #2 (increasing punishment) would definitely change things.
You're right, it wouldn't eliminate theft, but it would reduce it.
|
Castle laws reduce crime in two ways. The first is that people are less likely to commit a theft if they know that the victim is allowed to use deadly force against them, without fear of repercussion. The second way, is that thieves that are shot dead, are not capable of committing more thefts.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
03-23-2017, 03:16 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,885
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
Castle laws reduce crime in two ways. The first is that people are less likely to commit a theft if they know that the victim is allowed to use deadly force against them, without fear of repercussion. The second way, is that thieves that are shot dead, are not capable of committing more thefts.
|
I know how it works. But there's one factor you missed. 99.9% of Canadians (pretty much everyone on this forum) would wet their pants and get shot or shoot themselves if faced with an armed criminal (Let's face it, if castle law came in, criminals would also get armed) who has nothing to lose.
I know that's contrary to what all us hunters (who shoot at innocent animals) "think" but when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, being able to actually shoot another human is something very few humans could do (including LEOs).
(Here come all the keyboard warriors)...
|
03-23-2017, 03:40 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 24,071
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin455
Girls, girls, girls!
Am I going to have to separate you?
I generally try to mind my own business but this nattering is getting out of hand.
Ken is a respected poster who pulls no punches with his opinion. Good.
I disagree his feelings about civilian carry. Good
We both have opinions. Good
Stop whining and bitching about someone else's opinion and stop trying to dictate what others can and cannot do.
JB you are evidently a Liberal/NDP feel good, coddle criminal type who feels that we shouldn't be allowed to keep the property we earned if someone else wants to take it by theft. Good. you have an opinion.
I think you are very wrong on all accounts. Good. I have an opinion.
I personally feel that something needs to be done and a form of Castle Law should be allowed. Thievery is getting out of hand and there is little or no punishment. That is called Negative Reinforcement and usually leads to a gradual escalation of the offences as the offender becomes bolder.
Do I think my stuff is worth someone's life, not really.
Why does the thief think his life is worth less than what I earned?
My defending my family and/or property would harm no-one but someone breaking the Law.
Really, it's the choice of the offender to be safe or potentially be put in harms way. If injured, show them the sympathy they feel for those they steal from.
|
Good.
Good reply too.
|
03-23-2017, 03:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 24,071
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by super7mag
True story!! And I have heard it many times, I don't want so and so to have the hardships or work like I had to to get ahead!! Ya well that's why you have character if you coddle and baby and pave the way when it's time to step up it easier to choose grand theft auto lifestyle rather then getting up at 6 and going to work.
My opinion anyway .
I bought my house , I bought my stuff , if your in a bind I have no problem helping out. If you think you deserve my stuff because I have it and you don't , you might be eating breakfast thru a straw for a few weeks!! ( by you I mean theives not U personally) I think it's high time we get a castle law , because home owners are not the ones out looking for trouble. We should be able to defend our property and home by any means necessary in a given circumstance.
|
My brother from another mother!!!
|
03-23-2017, 03:45 PM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette
Become a law enforcement officer. You want the perks without the responsibility or liability. Let the professionals do the job as they are trained while you hide behind the safety of your keyboard and yell at people.
|
Not sure where you get your info, but I never wanted to be a cop. i don't even like donuts. Not sure what other perks there are. Odd really when you think about. Those people on AO who are cop wannabes. Hope they never make the cut.
I'm not hiding anywhere never had a reason to.
I'm also not paranoid or a pot head. I have no idea what those drugs are you are prescribing, cause I prefer reality.
I hope you don't get any hassle as you patrol the streets of Paradise with your baseball bat and machete looking for internet trolls and assorted riff raff.
stay safe big guy.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.
It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
|
03-23-2017, 07:28 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 9,981
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB_AOL
I'm afraid it's not that simple.. Guess who raised those millennials?
|
^ THIS.... all day long !!
|
03-24-2017, 05:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 232
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB_AOL
I know how it works. But there's one factor you missed. 99.9% of Canadians (pretty much everyone on this forum) would wet their pants and get shot or shoot themselves if faced with an armed criminal (Let's face it, if castle law came in, criminals would also get armed) who has nothing to lose.
I know that's contrary to what all us hunters (who shoot at innocent animals) "think" but when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, being able to actually shoot another human is something very few humans could do (including LEOs).
(Here come all the keyboard warriors)...
|
Have you ever had experience as a Law Enforcement Officer !
__________________
Never regret something that made you smile
|
03-24-2017, 06:46 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,885
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat01
Have you ever had experience as a Law Enforcement Officer !
|
Nope, but as mentioned, many of my friends and relatives are. And when they say "so & so will purposely delay going to a call to avoid a confrontation", tells me, I'm right, on my comment.
I fully respect what LEO's do, and it is NOT something I could (or would want) to do.
|
03-24-2017, 07:11 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 330
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opa
Looks like the gestapo are parked at Timmies, probably busy stuffing doughnuts into the doughnut hole and slobbering down their 3rd or 4th cup of coffee. A call out might cut into their valuable bs time!!!
|
Not sure what part of the article gave you that impression.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NEVER FORGET:
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking aim on guns", 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.
"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
— Justice Minister Allan Rock
|
03-24-2017, 07:12 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 330
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancid Crabtree
Why doesn't this article name the vermin ??
|
Because it would be racist to do so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NEVER FORGET:
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking aim on guns", 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.
"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
— Justice Minister Allan Rock
|
03-24-2017, 07:25 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 330
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck_Wagon
http://rdnewsnow.com/article/531278/...er-man-suspect
A case of mistaken identity has prompted Ponoka RCMP to issue an apology.
One of three men arrested following an incident last week near Crestomere was identified by police as Miles Appenrodt of Red Deer.
However, Mounties now say the man they arrested and later released had been possessing Appenrodt’s driver’s license, and was pretending to be him while in custody.
Police say Appenrodt was not involved in any offenses whatsoever.
“The RCMP deeply regrets this error and apologizes to Mr. Appenrodt for the difficulties this has caused,” says Cpl. Curtis Peters, RCMP Media Relations.
The RCMP says it has now correctly identified the male responsible and a warrant is being sought. The charges against him will now include personation and possession of identity document, in addition to the original offences.
|
What a joke.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NEVER FORGET:
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking aim on guns", 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.
"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
— Justice Minister Allan Rock
|
03-24-2017, 11:58 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 2,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin455
Girls, girls, girls!
I personally feel that something needs to be done and a form of Castle Law should be allowed. Thievery is getting out of hand and there is little or no punishment. That is called Negative Reinforcement and usually leads to a gradual escalation of the offences as the offender becomes bolder.
.
|
Negative reinforcement would be catching a baseball bat in the side of the head every time a thief walked through a door where he wasn't welcome. Eventually the thief would change his behaviour.
Positive reinforcement is when you steal and only get caught 10% of the times you commit a crime, are allowed to profit 90% of the times you commit a crime, and when you do get caught the punishment is playing pool in the reman center for a few weeks.
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.
Gerry Burnie
|
03-24-2017, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Northern AB
Posts: 858
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC
Negative reinforcement would be catching a baseball bat in the side of the head every time a thief walked through a door where he wasn't welcome. Eventually the thief would change his behaviour.
Positive reinforcement is when you steal and only get caught 10% of the times you commit a crime, are allowed to profit 90% of the times you commit a crime, and when you do get caught the punishment is playing pool in the reman center for a few weeks.
|
nope.
In negative reinforcement, a response or behavior is strengthened by stopping, removing or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus.
|
03-24-2017, 03:31 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 2,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin455
nope.
In negative reinforcement, a response or behavior is strengthened by stopping, removing or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus.
|
I should have done some research before spouting off; you're 100% correct.
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.
Gerry Burnie
|
03-24-2017, 03:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: central Alberta
Posts: 12,629
|
|
Loping off hands might not work nowadays. With today's technologies the perps would have new and improved mechanical hands they could attach thieving tools too. I say pop their eyes out instead.
__________________
___________________________________________
This country was started by voyagers whose young lives were swept away by the currents of the rivers for ten cents a day... just for the vanity of the European's beaver hats. ~ Red Bullets
___________________________________________
It is when you walk alone in nature that you discover your strengths and weaknesses. ~ Red Bullets
|
03-24-2017, 06:40 PM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Bullets
Loping off hands might not work nowadays. With today's technologies the perps would have new and improved mechanical hands they could attach thieving tools too. I say pop their eyes out instead.
|
I think that idea has been around for years. I often hear the guys at the coffee shop say keep an eye out for thieves. That might be what they mean.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.
It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 AM.
|