Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,346

    Keeping Communities Safe - Not a Liberal Priority

    Another CPC fundraiser.


    CLW .45 --

    The Trudeau Liberals have a reputation for breaking promises.

    Unfortunately, one promise they are keeping is going to put Canadians in harm’s way.

    I’m talking about their dismantling of our Conservative tough on crime agenda.

    They've scrapped key elements of our Victims Bill of Rights. They’re ending the mandatory payment of the victim surcharge.

    Why? To avoid any “undue hardships” to the perpetrators of crime.

    That’s right, the Liberals showed more compassion to criminals, than to victims of crime.

    Then Health Minister Jane Philpott announced she is repealing our Respect for Communities Act.

    What does that mean for you and your family?

    It means the Liberals are making it easier to open more drug injection sites. Making it easier for drug addicts to get their fix.

    The Liberals are ensuring that your community won’t even have a say in the matter. Just think, a new drug injection site could be coming to your neighborhood – without input from you or your community.

    >>Stand up for safe communities – donate $35<<

    And earlier this week, the Liberal’s Marijuana Task Force released their recommendations on legalizing pot.

    Unfortunately, they ignored the advice and recommendations of the Canadian Medical Association, and they cast aside the warning that police do not have the tools to keep our streets safe from increased drug impaired driving.

    The Liberals are choosing to put Canadians at risk.

    We’re standing up for victims and law abiding citizens. Help us continue with a $35 donation.

    Sincerely,

    Karen Vecchio
    Elgin – Middlesex - London

    My reply.


    Keeping Communities Safe - is it a priority for any party?

    Lip service all over the place. Plenty of virtue signalling. Precious little indication of action.

    Even the CPC seems to buy into the cult of victimhood. As I told the justice minister when he crowed about the Victim's Bill of Rights, we aren't interested in being victims. We don't see victimhood as conferring an enviable status.

    Although Canada has a relatively low violent crime rate, one could hardly argue that Canadians are safe from violence. And no one in their right mind believes that the police, who have no duty to do so, are able to protect them when attacked.

    The only other person that can be counted on to be at the scene, when you are attacked, is your assailant. At that point you are faced with problem one - surviving the attack. Your ability to do so is sadly restricted by firearms law that was specifically designed to do nothing but disarm you, leave you helpless.

    Although a licenced handgun owner may be authorized to carry to protect life, the authorization will almost certainly be denied on the basis that "you don't need a gun, you have police to protect you." Balderdash!

    The same dynamic applies to purchase of a handgun for protection of life. Unless the person with the authority to approve the purchase is convinced that you "need" it, the purchase cannot be approved.

    You don't have a crystal ball that will tell you when, where, or if you will need a weapon to defend the lives of your loved ones. Neither has any government agent, or police officer.

    Therefore, the decision of whether to carry or possess a weapon for your defence belongs to you alone.

    Section 20 must have "need" removed, and "may be authorized" must be replaced with "shall be authorized." The decision to authorize must be contingent on being licenced to possess, and on passing tests of knowledge and proficiency.

    Section 28 must be repealed to remove the requirement for a purchaser to demonstrate need.

    Karen, you don't want to be a victim any more than my loved ones do. We need to get real about "keeping communities safe."

    Thanks,

    CLW .45
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  2. The Following 12 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    88 louie (01-21-2018), Curly1 (12-19-2017), Doug_M (12-19-2017), FallisCowboy (12-19-2017), Hillbillyreefer (01-21-2018), LB303 (01-21-2018), Mobusten (01-12-2018), Relic49 (12-19-2017), rockandroll (12-18-2017), speedloader (12-19-2017), Swingerguy (12-20-2017), Waterloomike (12-20-2017)

  3. #2
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,346
    Another example of what I tell them.

    Parties, politicians, press, and public get the same info.

    Yes, firearms owners too.

    Not just about protection of life, but about criminalization and prohibition.

    It is important to make our positions known.

    Perhaps, some day, firearms owners will be as open to supporting one another as members of the general public have demonstrated themselves to be.

    Well, I can hope - can’t I?
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  4. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Doug_M (12-19-2017), FallisCowboy (12-19-2017), speedloader (12-19-2017), Swingerguy (12-20-2017), Zinilin (12-19-2017)

  5. #3
    Senior Member Jay.ec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    108
    I would love to have the opportunity to carry my handgun for my protection (or my co-workers). I agree with there being a course you'd have to complete before they let you carry a firearm though. But I think that's a small price to pay.

    Truth is that police response times can be pretty slow in parts of Canada. (In Nova Scotia if you're outside Halifax, you're likely looking at minimum 10 minute response time. Simply because that's how long it takes for the police to travel there. Criminals know this. Even in Halifax the response time is somewhere about 2 minutes.) I can't imagine what it'd be like somewhere rural Saskatchewan where the distance/time could be even greater. That, of course, also depends on the fact you can make a call for help. (If you're attacked you might not have time to make a phone call. And it's not like you can say "Hey, hold on one sec while I call the police. Then we can pick up where we left off, okay?" and they respond with "Yeah, sure it's only sporting.")

    So truth is the police can't really protect us, they're more there to deal with things after the event has happened. Find and punish who did it in many cases. Now sure they work towards reducing crime rates but they'll never be perfect at it. And it's way better to be proactive to take care of oneself rather than rely on others who may be too far away to help.

    But I have a hard time believing that those in power are actually going to listen. Especially when it comes to do with firearms.

  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,142
    15 min response time to me in theory, 20-30 in practice (based on real emergency calls we've placed over the last 10 years. So yeah, we have alternatives.

  7. #5
    Senior Member Waterloomike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Bantario
    Posts
    6,009
    Government's only priority is keeping themselves safe.
    It's getting harder and harder to support the government in the style to which they have become accustomed. They need a lesson in manners and to be taught who serves who.

  8. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Waterloomike

    shortandlong (12-20-2017), speedloader (01-21-2018)

  9. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Waterloomike View Post
    Government's only priority is keeping themselves safe.
    Yes and taxing the working man out of exsistince.

  10. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Relic49

    speedloader (01-21-2018), Waterloomike (12-20-2017)

  11. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    451 steps from Sask.
    Posts
    430
    CLW.45

    My reply.


    Keeping Communities Safe - is it a priority for any party?

    Lip service all over the place. Plenty of virtue signalling. Precious little indication of action.

    Even the CPC seems to buy into the cult of victimhood. As I told the justice minister when he crowed about the Victim's Bill of Rights, we aren't interested in being victims. We don't see victimhood as conferring an enviable status.

    Although Canada has a relatively low violent crime rate, one could hardly argue that Canadians are safe from violence. And no one in their right mind believes that the police, who have no duty to do so, are able to protect them when attacked.

    The only other person that can be counted on to be at the scene, when you are attacked, is your assailant. At that point you are faced with problem one - surviving the attack. Your ability to do so is sadly restricted by firearms law that was specifically designed to do nothing but disarm you, leave you helpless.

    Although a licenced handgun owner may be authorized to carry to protect life, the authorization will almost certainly be denied on the basis that "you don't need a gun, you have police to protect you." Balderdash!

    The same dynamic applies to purchase of a handgun for protection of life. Unless the person with the authority to approve the purchase is convinced that you "need" it, the purchase cannot be approved.

    You don't have a crystal ball that will tell you when, where, or if you will need a weapon to defend the lives of your loved ones. Neither has any government agent, or police officer.

    Therefore, the decision of whether to carry or possess a weapon for your defence belongs to you alone.

    Section 20 must have "need" removed, and "may be authorized" must be replaced with "shall be authorized." The decision to authorize must be contingent on being licenced to possess, and on passing tests of knowledge and proficiency.

    Section 28 must be repealed to remove the requirement for a purchaser to demonstrate need.

    Karen, you don't want to be a victim any more than my loved ones do. We need to get real about "keeping communities safe."

    Thanks,

    CLW .45


    BRILLIANT!!

    May I use the majority of this with a few small changes to also send to my MP?

    Swingerguy.

  12. The Following User Liked This Post By Swingerguy

    shortandlong (12-20-2017)

  13. #8
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,346
    Certainly.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  14. The Following User Liked This Post By CLW .45

    Swingerguy (12-21-2017)

  15. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    167
    Buying criminal’s votes now.

  16. #10
    Senior Member speedloader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,568
    Along the same lines ,this was in the sun today about the catch a release justice system putting the public at risk
    most of these drug head re offender thieves are out on the streets before the end of the CPS shifts

    http://calgarysun.com/news/crime/rev...public-at-risk

    With Calgary’s new auto theft task force taking a bite out of the city’s epidemic of stolen vehicles, there’s concern these efforts are being undone by a toothless justice system.

    Commissioned this past August, the CPS Auto Theft Resource Team (ATRT) uses a combination of targeted investigation and covert surveillance to target the city’s most prolific car thieves — the same offenders police say they’re seeing back on the streets shortly after they’re taken into custody.

    That’s a concern for the public and the police, said Staff Sgt. Jodi Gach, who heads the city’s auto theft task force, describing the situation as a big struggle for her investigators.

    “The police are doing our part in terms of finding the offenders, laying the applicable charges, gathering the evidence and making sure there’s solid packages to go before the courts,” she said.

    “There’s nothing significant as a deterrent for property crime offenders.”

    Over the past year and a half, the service’s district support unit has seen their mandate shift towards chronic offenders.

    That included the formation of the Prolific Offender Engagement Team (POET), the online stolen property team, and the permanent reassignment of a District Operations Team (DOT) as ATRT’s covert surveillance arm.

    “Since that time, it’s been noticeable the change it’s made on our ability to focus on offenders,” Gach said.

    “With every offender that we interview — and our guys interview every person we arrest — the message is getting out there.”

    Through their efforts, and courtesy of numerous tips from both the public and patrol, they’ve been busy apprehending many of the city’s most prolific car thieves.

    Again … and again.

    “They’re released on conditions or promises to appear — they’re basically released on paperwork,” Gach said, adding many they arrest are back on the street before the officer’s shift ends.

    “They’re released on conditions where — over and over and over again — they disregard any court order, or any authority that tries to stop them.”

    Police have even caught offenders getting rides home from jail in stolen vehicles.

    “There needs to be a recognition that patterns of behaviour don’t change when there are no repercussions,” Gach said.

    “If they’re not held accountable, there’s no reason to change.”

    An Alberta Justice spokesperson told Postmedia decisions by the Crown to make bail submissions or propose release conditions are based on a review of the case as well as criteria outlined in the Criminal Code.

    “Final decisions regarding bail are ultimately made by the courts, which are independent from government,” the department said in an emailed statement.

    Court dockets, news coverage and public records carry clear evidence of this chronic — and dangerous — recidivism in Calgary’s criminal community.

    The rap sheet of 25-year-old Brandon Stevens is a prime example.

    According to court records and documents obtained by Postmedia, Stevens currently has 44 outstanding breach of recognizance charges against him, having been previously released on six separate recognisances and appearance promises.

    He currently faces 114 outstanding criminal and traffic charges from a multiple of jurisdictions, and sources tell Postmedia he’s a suspect in numerous other criminal investigations.

    On Sept. 20, he was allegedly spotted behind the wheel of a stolen car associated to commercial break-and-enters.

    Allegedly taking off at high speed after an attempted traffic stop and later arrested by Mounties outside city limits, he was released by the courts the next day.

    One week later, he was arrested for breaching his release conditions and sent to the Calgary Remand Centre — before again being released with conditions on Oct. 10.

    Stevens was again arrested two days later for outstanding warrants, and released the same day by a justice of the peace.

    On Nov. 17, he was arrested as part of a $1.3-million stolen property bust, charged with 30 offences and 25 outstanding warrants.

    Remanded in custody, he appeared in court earlier this month facing a slew of charges — including theft, auto theft, weapons, firearms, drugs, dangerous driving, evading police, forgery, and possession of stolen credit cards.

    When asked how people like Stevens impact their day-to-day investigations, Gach said almost all of the suspects under their scrutiny follow familiar patterns.

    “The system is set up to enable the lifestyle that they’re leading — committing not only the stolen vehicle crime, but more importantly the crime they’re doing with the vehicles,” she said.

    “With many prolific offenders, their addictions are so strong that I don’t think it’s realistic for us to think — in some of these cases — that rehabilitation is even an option.”

    Gach said the revolving door offers absolutely no opportunity for offenders to seek help with their addictions or setting their lives on a better path.

    “We do what we can to provide social resources, but this is their life — it’s a life of crime,” Gach said.

    “No matter how many times we arrest them, they’re still getting out.”

    Many of the frequent visitors to Gach’s holding cells are frequent methamphetamine users, a drug that robs addicts of sleep and whittles away at their sanity and good judgment.

    “Their highs can last for days,” she said.

    “When we interview them, oftentimes they can’t even keep their eyes open. Unless you see it in these interviews, it’s hard to believe somebody could actually stay awake for five days on a serious crime spree.”

    When coupled with a desire to evade capture, it’s a dangerous mix that leads to maniacal driving that puts everybody in the city at risk.

    “It’s extremely frustrating watching the revolving door,” Gach said.

    “The decisions that are being made are being done at a level that’s beyond our control.

    “It’s frustrating, sure … but that’s part of the job.”

    [email protected]

    On Twitter: @bryanpassifiume

    2017 Calgary auto thefts (reported)
    January: 567
    February: 379
    March: 475
    April: 516
    May: 508
    June: 454
    July: 440
    August: 447
    September: 489
    October: 569
    November: 546
    December: 538

    Total: 5,928 (16.24 stolen cars per day)

    (Source: Calgary Police community crime statistics)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •