I think that the best part about your post is NOT that you are advocating private armed guards but, rather, that you are advocating SOMETHING and thinking about SOMETHING other than wringing our collective hands and/or simply rolling over and playing dead (soon to require no acting skills?).
Thanks for this, David. I've been wondering whether I should take the plunge and purchase / learn to use a gun.
What happens in Toronto slowly / gradually infects the West as the epidemic of violence in New York will assuredly leach northward.
I'm not sure we can wait another 18 months for the change in gov't (if that materializes) or if that will bring much-needed changes to the justice system; the Poilievre Conservatives already have a pretty stacked plate.
Policing ourselves makes much more sense, I think. Not all of us have an extra $5,000 / year, what with the onerous levels of taxation. Then too, all of us learning to defend ourselves and our property isn't necessarily a bad thing ... taking turns at patrolling neighbourhoods requires an investment of time not dollars. Perhaps some combination of private policing and citizen involvment?
Yes, that $5,000 price tag is a lot. Although it was really just a back-of-the-envelope estimate. The real question is whether it'll ever be possible to push through the necessary changes to Canadian law to make it possible.
I just had a fascinating thought: compare that $5,000/year private security fee with what it would cost for a gun, gun club membership, regular sessions at the club firing range, and ammunition. I would be surprised if it came to less than $3,000/year. I'm going to edit this thought into the article.
Well, first off: I'm not a lawyer, so don't take any legal stuff I say too seriously. But I believe the primary roadblocks to arming *private* security guards are the federal Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. I believe the new Alberta sheriffs would be officers of the court - i.e., they're public officials.
You're very probably much more well-read than I, David, and of course your opinion counts (hence the decision to have your posts arrive in my Inbox).
Thank you for clarifying jurisidictions and classifications.
At the end of the day, I suspect it'll boil down to individual thoughts about personal safety; what we need to do, what we're prepared to do, whether we can align either with our neighbours' thoughts on the matter.
Could you explain why the idea is intrinsically bad? Or, more to the point, how it's any different than private schools or private delivery of healthcare.
Of course we'd all prefer that all those services could be provided to all citizens equally. But since that appears to be impossible, what moral imperative requires that no one receives adequate services?
Because those things are not impossible. It's not even that we're collectively choosing not to do it. It's primarily that the few with power/money are warping the field and preventing us from doing it. In my opinion, there is no morally defensible reason for giving up on crating a just and equitable world. That's what morality is. Otherwise we are beasts. No shade on beasts, but I would prefer not to live like one.
Ok. But do you have any practical and workable solutions for those problems that stay 100% within the orbit of the state? How would you - with the real-world resources we have available - provide adequate personal and property safety for all Canadians? How would you provide schooling even for families who aren't adequately served by the one-size-fits-all public education system? And how would you address the millions of Canadians who don't currently have primary healthcare providers?
I would kee trying. Keep fighting for more equitable wealth distribution. Universal health care. Great public schools. It's not like there's an end point. No "Mission accomplished". I just refuse to cede the ground to the billionaire class and their toadies.
I agree with you that we should never ignore any possible public solution. And no rejigging of the system will achieve perfection. But, in the meantime, every day there are new crime victims and new preventable health tragedies, and new cases of public school kids being subjected to bullying, abuse, and neglect (not that all public school kids are victims, of course - but they exist). I feel it's immoral to *not* fight for their rights.
Geoff, with respect please get off the "rich" kick. I am retired now (very modestly, I assure you) but while working I had to deal with many wealthy people and I learned some lessons about them.
Most of them were absolutely terrified of crossing CRA in some way and they wanted to be very conservative, even to the point of paying extra, where "unusual" [I think you can arrive at a definition of "unusual"] tax deductions were concerned.
Most of them were convinced that Canada was a good place simply because most of them had travelled to other countries.
I am aware that not all such folk are lily white (I did use the word "most") but far and away of the universe of such folks that I dealt with, most, most, most were law abiding and paid their taxes.
The principal problem with the rich is that there are not enough of them. Why do I say that? Well, the rich really, really do pay a lot of taxes so if we had more richies then the country would collect more revenue.
I think that the best part about your post is NOT that you are advocating private armed guards but, rather, that you are advocating SOMETHING and thinking about SOMETHING other than wringing our collective hands and/or simply rolling over and playing dead (soon to require no acting skills?).
Exactly!
Thanks for this, David. I've been wondering whether I should take the plunge and purchase / learn to use a gun.
What happens in Toronto slowly / gradually infects the West as the epidemic of violence in New York will assuredly leach northward.
I'm not sure we can wait another 18 months for the change in gov't (if that materializes) or if that will bring much-needed changes to the justice system; the Poilievre Conservatives already have a pretty stacked plate.
Policing ourselves makes much more sense, I think. Not all of us have an extra $5,000 / year, what with the onerous levels of taxation. Then too, all of us learning to defend ourselves and our property isn't necessarily a bad thing ... taking turns at patrolling neighbourhoods requires an investment of time not dollars. Perhaps some combination of private policing and citizen involvment?
Yes, that $5,000 price tag is a lot. Although it was really just a back-of-the-envelope estimate. The real question is whether it'll ever be possible to push through the necessary changes to Canadian law to make it possible.
I just had a fascinating thought: compare that $5,000/year private security fee with what it would cost for a gun, gun club membership, regular sessions at the club firing range, and ammunition. I would be surprised if it came to less than $3,000/year. I'm going to edit this thought into the article.
Doesn't policing fall within provincial and / or municipal jurisdictions? For example, in Alberta, we're gradually implementing sheriffs. https://www.lawcentralalberta.ca/en/sheriffs-alberta
Well, first off: I'm not a lawyer, so don't take any legal stuff I say too seriously. But I believe the primary roadblocks to arming *private* security guards are the federal Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. I believe the new Alberta sheriffs would be officers of the court - i.e., they're public officials.
You're very probably much more well-read than I, David, and of course your opinion counts (hence the decision to have your posts arrive in my Inbox).
Thank you for clarifying jurisidictions and classifications.
At the end of the day, I suspect it'll boil down to individual thoughts about personal safety; what we need to do, what we're prepared to do, whether we can align either with our neighbours' thoughts on the matter.
At the end of the day? The safety of our tribe?
Seriously? Privatized police!? Nope! How do you say "Fuck the poor" without saying "Fuck the poor"?
Could you explain why the idea is intrinsically bad? Or, more to the point, how it's any different than private schools or private delivery of healthcare.
Of course we'd all prefer that all those services could be provided to all citizens equally. But since that appears to be impossible, what moral imperative requires that no one receives adequate services?
Because those things are not impossible. It's not even that we're collectively choosing not to do it. It's primarily that the few with power/money are warping the field and preventing us from doing it. In my opinion, there is no morally defensible reason for giving up on crating a just and equitable world. That's what morality is. Otherwise we are beasts. No shade on beasts, but I would prefer not to live like one.
*creating*
Ok. But do you have any practical and workable solutions for those problems that stay 100% within the orbit of the state? How would you - with the real-world resources we have available - provide adequate personal and property safety for all Canadians? How would you provide schooling even for families who aren't adequately served by the one-size-fits-all public education system? And how would you address the millions of Canadians who don't currently have primary healthcare providers?
I would kee trying. Keep fighting for more equitable wealth distribution. Universal health care. Great public schools. It's not like there's an end point. No "Mission accomplished". I just refuse to cede the ground to the billionaire class and their toadies.
I agree with you that we should never ignore any possible public solution. And no rejigging of the system will achieve perfection. But, in the meantime, every day there are new crime victims and new preventable health tragedies, and new cases of public school kids being subjected to bullying, abuse, and neglect (not that all public school kids are victims, of course - but they exist). I feel it's immoral to *not* fight for their rights.
Geoff, with respect please get off the "rich" kick. I am retired now (very modestly, I assure you) but while working I had to deal with many wealthy people and I learned some lessons about them.
Most of them were absolutely terrified of crossing CRA in some way and they wanted to be very conservative, even to the point of paying extra, where "unusual" [I think you can arrive at a definition of "unusual"] tax deductions were concerned.
Most of them were convinced that Canada was a good place simply because most of them had travelled to other countries.
I am aware that not all such folk are lily white (I did use the word "most") but far and away of the universe of such folks that I dealt with, most, most, most were law abiding and paid their taxes.
The principal problem with the rich is that there are not enough of them. Why do I say that? Well, the rich really, really do pay a lot of taxes so if we had more richies then the country would collect more revenue.