Wild Bill

Hmm. Good points, I must admit. I think I should do some googling myself, just to see how the law is actually written for these situations.

And what happens if a clerk makes a mistake, CC? What happens if a waitress fails to realize a patron is too drunk to drive and he has an accident on the way home? In both these cases, if anything happens the clerk is held responsible! If so, then how can they dare show any discretion, even if it is allowed? My Utilitarian gland is paining me again! Something doesn't work here!

You'd be surprised how few Hamiltonians visit Toronto. Why the hell would we? When's the last time YOU fought the traffic to make the trip? Perhaps we should be going to Leafs games and watch them choke every year? We used to go to Jays games but after nearly two decades of "rebuilding years" we've gotten a bit jaded. You don't have to keep repeating about the NHL. I get it! Toronto screws Hamiton for hockey because they think we are a good part of their game attendance. You and the suits for the NHL and the Leafs should wake up and realize its no longer 1975. Do you have any idea how long is the trip from Hamilton in driving time? And the cost/aggravation in time? Man, I thought I was old and getting out of touch! Can't hold a candle to you guys! Again, I asked you for specifics and you give me crap, gloating while you do it! You just keep putting Hamilton down, thus proving my point! Just as a sidebar, Kirkland Lake was never against Toronto's business. That was a putup job by some environmentalists on Toronto council. If you have no memory then you should at least use Google!

Guyser, where do you think tax money comes from? Not just from homes but from businesses! As for what Toronto receives from the rest of us, how about that 400 MILLION for new street cars that came about from a rigged deal to have them manufactured at union shops in Thunder Bay, at a cost far above what could have been achieved from an open tender? How has Toronto been able to afford those hundreds of garbage trucks that tear up the 400 series highways EVERY DAY to take the crap to Michigan, after quashing a deal that would have benefited Kirkland Lake? Why should the rest of us pay for those loony toons refugees they call their councilors? And thank you for agreeing with me that Toronto has hurt Hamilton as regards to a hockey team and better airport service. I HAD thought you were going to cite some ways that Toronto BENEFITED Hamilton but I guess you are as stumped to come up with examples as I am!

Well, my direct experience would differ, guyser. Toronto used to be part of my sales territory, selling parts to high tech electronic manufacturers. I would agree with you somewhat if we were talking about the GTA and excluded OLD Toronto! All my accounts were in Mississauga, Pickering and north of the 401. I had virtually none within the old city of Toronto. I would have been very surprised if I did have any! With the difficulty in quick car access why would any account want to locate there? No doubt you are now going to default onto the banks. There are indeed many bank headquarters in downtown Toronto. So what? Banks count money. They don't actually make or service anything! Here in Ontario, they are so stingy and bureaucratic about loans to businesses that most pursue other financial vendors anyway. What's more, in this day and age the location of a bank HQ doesn't matter anyway. It's an online world. ING is a bank that has no physical locations here at all and they are MUCH more friendly to business accounts! So I would be interested if you could tell me specifically what Toronto is bringing all the rest of us outside its borders to justify our taxes going their way. A loser hockey team, perhaps? Maybe we Hamiltonians should feel some loyalty despite Toronto using its political clout to block our airport expansion, forcing us to fight the QEW for a couple of hours just to get a plane out of the country? (A lot of us refuse to do it any longer and fly out of Buffalo. Cheaper, too!) And we have the Toronto Leafs to thank for blocking Hamilton from getting an NHL team all these years. C'mon, guyser! Give us some specifics!

Interesting. I was paying $3200 for a 220k house in Stoney Creek. What makes Toronto folks so special? Why should I be expected to subsidize them with my taxes? I avoid going to Toronto like the plague! I have been stung before by their predatory parking practices and public transportation from most parts of Hamilton to Toronto is inconvenient to non-existent. Screw 'em and the horses they rode in on!

Maybe to a lawyer! Common sense would suggest otherwise.

You nailed it, Boges! Some folks are frantically dodging the issue and trying to make it out to be all about an underage buyer getting sold a bottle. They are doing this because they do NOT want to face the identification and religious aspects of the incident, especially when it looks like people in burkhas get a free pass!

Wow! Finally we have political correctness causing blatant contradictions! Who woulda thunk it? I'm surprised it hasn't happened long ago! After all, we champion keeping liquor out of the hands of minors while simultaneously accepting the right of some citizens to hide their identity for what are claimed to be religious reasons. Leave the religion out of it and think about it. Can such contradictions work? Of course not! So how does someone's religion change anything? Something either works or it doesn't! Finding a scapegoat doesn't really change who's really to blame. Meanwhile, some are blaming Menzies for testing the contradiction. Others blame the newspaper that reported it, calling it trash as if that changes the validity of what it reported. Yet another ad hominem argument, I guess. It's all quite simple, people! Give your heads a shake! Political correctness CAUSED this to happen! Those that push such ideas are responsible. No one else!

Jim Flaherty? Tony Clement?

Wow! Anyone who disagrees with your POV must be stupid! Yet of course, it's not the left that's prone to ad hominem attacks! This is why I have so few friends on the left. I have some but they certainly don't take this arrogant attitude! You sound like Rush Limbaugh!

Here's the link: http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2012/07/irans-nuclear-program-has-been-thunderstruck-by-malware-again.html "Now it seems that a new malware infection is running rampant in certain Iranian computer labs. Reports sent to F-Secure’s Mikko Hypponen over the weekend from the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran indicate that its network of computers had again been compromised by malware. This time, however, there’s a twist. It appears someone involved in the creation of this new malicious code is a bit of an AC/DC fan. In the wee hours of the night, several of the infected computers started blasting out Thunderstruck at full volume." The fact that such a powerful virus has once again hit the Iranian nuclear bomb program is fascinating in itself but the sheer gall to inject such a touch of humour by making the Iranians listen to the Young brothers on 10 just makes me cry out in glee! And the choice of songs - Thunderstruck! I'm not just a techie. I'm also an old hippy from the Woodstock years! My generation stopped the Viet Nam war. We brought down a corrupt president. With rock and roll and blue jeans we toppled the Berlin Wall. Now another generation is trying to stop nuclear escalation at the hands of religious fundamentalist fanatical barbarians. My faith in Mankind has been restored! I had thought to put this in the technology forum but there are far too many political ramifications for that arena. We don't need to discuss the technology - its a given! The politics however lead to a myriad of possibilities.

Good examples! Security at our airports actually makes me MORE afraid! It's all smoke and mirrors, administered by minimum wage police "wannabees". Meanwhile, every so often a scandal will be revealed about how bike gangs have infiltrated the cargo handling at Pearson Airport. We have a war on terror to make it look like we are doing something about terror. It pacifies the general population as it LOOKS like the authorities are doing SOMETHING! No one digs a little further to see if what they are doing is actually effective. So we have the same screening process for little old Italian grandmothers as for people from the groups where the contemporary terrorism is coming from - Islamist terrorists can hide under burkhas and our security treats them with kid gloves, for fear of being accused of profiling. Profiling! The most basic and effective tool of any law enforcement agency is verboten for not being politically correct! I would like to see us copy the Israeli model. Well paid, college educated and extremely well trained agents stand around Israeli airports holding Uzis and carrying handguns! They are very capable of picking up on something wrong in a crowd. Cargo handling is screened even more carefully. Our security is driven by politics. The Israelis do it for REAL! It is not surprising that Israeli airports have an unblemished record - the best in the world! As for warrantless wiretapping, I have mixed feelings about that. I can see a real need and a positive benefit. I just wish it would not be done by Curly, Larry and Moe!

You and I have a different definition of Utilitarian, MF! I use it in the context of being concerned with what will work. You are defining it as something we decide to do or not do, according to the worth of the result. I think the need to do something positive is obvious. The MSM has been quoting stats about crime going down almost every hourly newscast but only a few outlets have included not just the summation that crime overall is going down but that the incidence of gang gun violence in cities like Toronto is going UP! You can't use stats weighted by burglary incidents to decide policy with drive-by shootings! If you have a problem in a specific area you don't use stats from a completely different area to prove your point or advance your agenda!

No, this is the type of stuff that non-logical thinking gets you! More and more I am becoming convinced that logical thinking is becoming very scarce in the population at large. With respect to gun control, if you are a non-logical thinker you believe that putting a ban on something in legal writing actually solves the problem! You don't think any deeper than that, like a chess player who can only see one move ahead. The idea that a ban would need enforcement never occurs. The idea that those malignantly motivated would simply ignore such a ban also never occurs. Meanwhile, idea diarrhea erupts, if you'll pardon the pun! People will come up with ideas only loosely related to the concept and stretch them all out of proportion, as if playing intellectual games relates one on one to the real world! They will call for bans on toy guns, saying that they can lead to children becoming adults who look upon guns as toys. They will equate sport shooting with gang violence, simply because in both cases guns are involved and perhaps because the terms share some of the same letters, if only the vowels! With the common baseline of the population, we seem to be losing common sense and perspective. The academic viewpoint is accepted over that of hands on experience. Hands on experience is derided and ignored! Already after the recent Toronto shootings the subject of discussion has shifted from preventing gang shootings TODAY towards giving more money to community programs in the hope of changing things TOMORROW! I am not against long term plans but the problem is that auditing such plans can often become inpossible, since you need decades if not generations to see the results of different approaches. Meanwhile, innocent bystanders are being hurt and killed TODAY! As a society Boges, I think we may be past it! We may already be so far down the path of decadence that we no longer understand how to fix such problems. If so, then it's already too late! We are just going to see more of the same at an escalating level.

I think folks should give your idea a better hearing, WWWTT! Juat because we've never seen a provincial premier make a successful jump to rule in Ottawa doesn't mean that it is impossible. For everything something must be first! Dalton somehow has managed to be successful at holding on here in Ontario. Perhaps that's more because of the failings of his opponents than his own strengths but so what? The Liberals have no one else with as good a track record! Besides, if the Liberals are being realistic they know that there's no point in expected a winner to come out of the wilderness and save them. Someone like McGuinty might be able to at least stop the bleeding and perhaps even recover some lost ground. Considering the present position of the federal Liberal Party, McGuinty could be a huge plus! If he could stop the slide and maybe recover some ground the Liberals would have bought themselves some breathing time. They could then start a search for someone to take them back to power. The question is, would McGuinty be willing to serve in such a role? What's in it for him?

Perhaps in those other cities. I am not familiar enough with them to have an informed opinion. As for Toronto, my experience says that Toronto is really not interested in adding officers to cope with guns and gangs. Their police priorities are parking and tickets! If they took 10% of the officers assigned to those areas and put them on street gang duty they would have more than enough to do what you suggest. It's a lead cinch they will never do this!

Pretty easy to deal with? In theory, maybe. How easy do you think it would be for every town's police force to get the budget to hire extra officers? I think you've given us an academic solution, Argus. You know, one that sounds simple in a book but could never work in the real world.

My friend, since I was small I have watched the Liberals switch from the left to the right and back again. They have NO fixed principles - not since the days of Lester Pearson! This was always their biggest strength at election time. They were like a DJ at a wedding, switching his music genres to suit the taste of the crowd at the time. So the definitions of left and right have not changed, just the parties who have claimed to represent those philosophies. The Liberals always seek to be the alternative to the party in power. If the Tories ever moved more to the "pink tory" side of the spectrum the Liberals would immediately become more Harris than Harris! I'm almost ashamed to admit it but the Liberals too are Utilitarians. "Whatever works!" has always been their motto. It has been very successful for them in the past and likely will be again.

Actually Argus, you're not correct. I have friends and family in the police force and even a few acquaintances on the other side of the line. For years, a handgun has been easily obtainable, at least within any city or even small town in Ontario, which is the limit of my sources' knowledge. Walk into any "divey" hotel and sit there patiently. Mention your need to a few of the patrons. Within a few hours, you will have a gun. Anywhere that drugs can be scored (which is EVERYWHERE!) a gun can be sourced! Not likely from the same vendor but a drug vendor will know someone in the right circle and pass the request on. He will likely get a small commission for the referral. My info Argus comes from people in positions to know. This sort of thing is not widely noticed, since "traditional" criminals tend not to be obvious and spectacular with their use of firearms while committing crimes. The situation with gangs in a city like Toronto is quite different. By the standards of the usual criminal, these kids are crazy! They earn huge sums of money from their drug dealings and can afford not just expensive handguns but even assault weapons. They live in an isolated sub culture of their own and feel little or no relevance from the police and other authorities. In effect, they feel no checks or balances on their behavior. To try to deal with new and unique problems such as gunfights from gang bangers with methods from 50 years ago is futile! Society is going to have to make some hard choices and forego some of the more liberal approaches which just don't work in these situations. Otherwise, the problem is only going to grow. We will see lots of smoke and mirrors but the trend of gun violence is only going to escalate.

Well, wouldn't any loss be imagined until and unless it actually happened? It would be silly to carry a firearm to correct having already been robbed or attacked! Lacking the State being able to protect you, I would think protecting yourself is simple prudence! It really doesn't matter, however. McGuinty obviously couldn't care a whit about actually protecting any initial victims. The man is a consummate politician. He is attempting to be seen as doing SOMETHING! In politics, that in itself is enough. He will give some community groups money, without worrying about any future audit to see if the money actually accomplished anything. He will also likely support that Toronto councilor who called for a ban on ammunition in Toronto. Now, at first glance a practical observer might see this to be downright silly! Illegal guns are so easily obtained by gangs in Toronto that some are actually rented! Why would obtaining the ammunition become impossible after banning the legal sort? No, all that would do would be to piss off the legal gun users. Still, politically it would be a very effective move! There are huge numbers of voters that do not think logically about such things. They are afraid of firearms and any sort of ban will make them feel safer. Since they are thinking emotionally and not logically an ammunition ban WILL make them feel safer! Afterwards, whenever another such shooting occurs they will look at it as an anomaly - simple bad luck. No doubt some will blame the feds for not having a magic barrier at the border, or will blame it all on those evil gun-toting Americans. They will still feel better for having an ammunition ban! I fully expect that NOTHING of real worth will be done! Various politicians and lobby groups will use the issue for their own agenda. A lot of flowers and such will be placed at the scenes of these crimes. We will hear lots of "people should care more!" and "parents MUST instil better values in their children!" and most of all "It's all about money! Everyone knows that all poor families breed criminals! Just give them more welfare and the problem will disappear! While you are at it, I've set up another community program. I'm the director! If you give us enough money so that I am quite comfortable I will fix this problem for you!" It's looking more and more like the centre cannot hold...

That would imply that despite carrying arms being legal not very many people actually do it. That doesn't change that if someone was armed they COULD take the shooter down! Certainly, if no one is armed, whether because of laws or custom, then there is nothing to stop a wingnut until the police eventually arrive. If you know of something that COULD stop the assailant please tell me!

Armour doesn't help much with a head shot...

True, more's the pity. Judicial officials who were not there will afterwards second guess your actions. If a criminal was carrying a gun while robbing you it is only common sense to assume he intends to use it. However, afterwards a lawyer can argue that he only intended to frighten his victim. Now the victim of course has no way of knowing his assailant is not sincere. If he guesses wrong he may be wounded or killed! Certainly he may be robbed. The money in his wallet maybe the source of food for his children the following week. Do you know of any compensation fund for such a victim? One that pays quickly enough to buy those groceries for the following week? Monday morning quarterbacking is the province of the courts, these days. Still, there is a very apt adage. It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6! Whatever, this is only a sidebar. It doesn't change the essential points.

Actually, you are only partially right. It's true you can't defend against a nutbar opening fire. However, if people around are carrying weapons of their own they have a good chance of limiting the number of people hit and/or killed. Someone there might shoot the nutbar and stop the carnage. The alternative (the Canadian way?) is to allow him to fire away at will until the police are notified and have time to respond. Obviously, that extra time can mean a lot more people dead or wounded. Realistically, there is no other way to describe such situations. One can argue about whether or not you prefer to ban citizens from carrying their own protection but you can't possibly make the claim that the police would be better able to limit the carnage! Some argue that allowing citizens to carry guns for protection would result in indiscriminate shootings all day long at every street corner where someone might panic for no good reason. This is essentially saying that the majority of citizens are idiots. Actually, I could easily be persuaded that such a thing is true!