Shooting at the Eaton Centre

[waldo]

Clearly, if/when the testimony of numerous witness, the admittance of security footage etc help convict Mr Husbands of his most recent charges, will this not demonstrate that the judge that granted him bail/ house arrest after being charged with sexual assault, used poor judgement with regards to Mr Husbands? Dare I say negligence in ensuring the public’s safety.

the judgement you speak of in granting bail/house arrest was predicated upon the past known events. I appreciate your agenda favours your want to prejudice the judgement that reflects upon past known events.

but again, you're avoiding/negating factual circumstance to fuel your agenda.

[bleeding heart]

Unlikely, firearms seized by police in Canada tend to be types one can't purchase legally here.

I was only explaining the argument as put forth by anothe rposter, as I thought the argument was being misunderstood by another.

I personally couldn't give a rat's ass about the number of legal firearms owned by anybody.

[bleeding heart]

Why would I do that? Was Mr Husband under House arrest? Was Mr Husband not charged with sexual assault? Did not a judge grant him bail and house arrest?

You didn't say he was charged with sexual assault. You said he was guilty of sexual assault.

[Michael Hardner]

Nope, it just ain't. If a criminal can use an easily acquired unregistered gun, where he gets same isn't in any way determined by those owned legally.

How does he "get" this gun ? Stealing/buying ? Isn't there a market for guns there ? You know.. supply... demand... all that ?

Your blanket statement that only criminals will get guns is true, but how many and how prevalent will this problem be ?

[GostHacked]

How does he "get" this gun ? Stealing/buying ? Isn't there a market for guns there ? You know.. supply... demand... all that ?

Your blanket statement that only criminals will get guns is true, but how many and how prevalent will this problem be ?

How prevalent is it now?

[Canuckistani]

How prevalent is it now?

All guns start off a legal ones. I don't think there's a side door where the gun factory puts out the illegal ones for the gangsters. That means the illegal guns were either stolen or bought at gun shows (what a stupid idea that is). If we reduce the number of legal guns by making legal ownership more restrictive, it reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen. It may be a bit late for that now tho, since there are so many guns floating around the US. It would take a huge effort to make a dent, and that's not going to happen.

[Signals.Cpl]

All guns start off a legal ones. I don't think there's a side door where the gun factory puts out the illegal ones for the gangsters. That means the illegal guns were either stolen or bought at gun shows (what a stupid idea that is). If we reduce the number of legal guns by making legal ownership more restrictive, it reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen. It may be a bit late for that now tho, since there are so many guns floating around the US. It would take a huge effort to make a dent, and that's not going to happen.

Yeah but thats the US and we have no say in their internal politics. If the criminal is dedicated enough he/she could find another way to get their hands on them or come up with another weapon. Everything could be used as a weapon, if this idiot had used a car to run over those 7 people, would we be having the debate about restricting cars? What about if he had used a molotov cocktail or any other such device? We won't cure the problem by removing the weapons, we cure the problem if we fight the gangs with any means at our disposal which includes removing the root causes like kids joining gangs in the first place.

[Canuckistani]

Yeah but thats the US and we have no say in their internal politics. If the criminal is dedicated enough he/she could find another way to get their hands on them or come up with another weapon. Everything could be used as a weapon, if this idiot had used a car to run over those 7 people, would we be having the debate about restricting cars? What about if he had used a molotov cocktail or any other such device? We won't cure the problem by removing the weapons, we cure the problem if we fight the gangs with any means at our disposal which includes removing the root causes like kids joining gangs in the first place.

Unfortunately we also have a porous border, especially at the Akwesasne reserve.

Everything can be used as a weapon, but don't you think that's a lame argument. Could Husbands have run over Hassan at the Eaton center. The reason people use guns is how effective they are at killing - that's the only thing they are good for. Cars have other uses, and in the US, cars are more regulated than guns in some states.

People always make a black or white arguement. "We won't cure the problem." How about if we make a significant reduction in the problem? Isn't that better than nothing? But you have a point, in that to make a serious dent in the problem we need to address social issues like poverty. As (forget his name) has pointed out, Switzerland has many guns in civilian hands, but few shootings. Of course they are all long guns, not handguns, and the people who have them have been trained and keep them well locked up. But also, Switzerland has way less poverty and a cohesive society with much less crime.

But I certainly agree with your last sentence - we won't impact gangs by just fighting them - the US is great at fighting and their gang situation is just out of control. We have to address poverty and take away a major source of funding for gangs - illegal drugs, by making them legal.

[Signals.Cpl]

Unfortunately we also have a porous border, especially at the Akwesasne reserve.

Everything can be used as a weapon, but don't you think that's a lame argument. Could Husbands have run over Hassan at the Eaton center. The reason people use guns is how effective they are at killing - that's the only thing they are good for. Cars have other uses, and in the US, cars are more regulated than guns in some states.

Nope, but he sure could have outside in the parking lot or the street. And once again, regulating the weapon while ignoring the root causes is bound to fail. You can regulate guns, and people will find a way around that or just find another means.

People always make a black or white arguement. "We won't cure the problem." How about if we make a significant reduction in the problem?

Well, guns are NOT the problem therefore restricting guns will not solve the problem now will it? If you don’t deal with the cause anything else is not worth the effort, we could remove every weapon from Canada and criminals will find more ingenious ways to commit crimes, and likely more destructive means as well.

Isn't that better than nothing? But you have a point, in that to make a serious dent in the problem we need to address social issues like poverty. As (forget his name) has pointed out, Switzerland has many guns in civilian hands, but few shootings. Of course they are all long guns, not handguns, and the people who have them have been trained and keep them well locked up. But also, Switzerland has way less poverty and a cohesive society with much less crime.

No, we could be actually pushing criminals to use more lethal means that are even harder to regulate. As well, Switzerland has hundreds of thousands of assault rifles in private hands aside from those in the hands of their military. It’s a different culture, one that does not necessarily glorify gangsters and gang life, we need to teach children about weapons, not how to use them but more of what the consequences of shooting people. We need to look at what makes Switzerland successful and try to steer our nation towards that rather than trying to be more restrictive with little to no effect or it could be counterproductive.

But I certainly agree with your last sentence - we won't impact gangs by just fighting them - the US is great at fighting and their gang situation is just out of control. We have to address poverty and take away a major source of funding for gangs - illegal drugs, by making them legal.

I disagree about legalizing drugs, but to me the major part of the solution is giving kids in at risk neighborhoods a way out, through investment in their schools and government funded programs to keep kids occupied and productive with positive role models. If we show kids that there is another way to live, as well as offer them a future we could potentially solve more of the problem then ignoring the root causes and concentrating on the tools used.

[Canuckistani]

Nope, but he sure could have outside in the parking lot or the street. And once again, regulating the weapon while ignoring the root causes is bound to fail. You can regulate guns, and people will find a way around that or just find another means.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we reduced the availability of guns people would kill each other in the same numbers using cars? Are you not willing to agree that guns are very efficient killing machines - if we have them harder to get there would be less killing?

Well, guns are NOT the problem therefore restricting guns will not solve the problem now will it? If you don’t deal with the cause anything else is not worth the effort, we could remove every weapon from Canada and criminals will find more ingenious ways to commit crimes, and likely more destructive means as well.

See above. You can't be serious about your argument here.

No, we could be actually pushing criminals to use more lethal means that are even harder to regulate. As well, Switzerland has hundreds of thousands of assault rifles in private hands aside from those in the hands of their military. It’s a different culture, one that does not necessarily glorify gangsters and gang life, we need to teach children about weapons, not how to use them but more of what the consequences of shooting people. We need to look at what makes Switzerland successful and try to steer our nation towards that rather than trying to be more restrictive with little to no effect or it could be counterproductive.

What more lethal means come to mind? If they exist, why aren't they using them now? Sense of fair play among criminals? What makes Switzerland successful is primarily that it is an equitable society with far less crime. The people who own "assault" rifles in Switzerland are or were part of the militia - they were well trained (remind you of something?) Once they leave the militia, the rifles are converted to semi-auto function, they are no longer able to fire on automatic.

I disagree about legalizing drugs, but to me the major part of the solution is giving kids in at risk neighborhoods a way out, through investment in their schools and government funded programs to keep kids occupied and productive with positive role models. If we show kids that there is another way to live, as well as offer them a future we could potentially solve more of the problem then ignoring the root causes and concentrating on the tools used.

Drugs are a huge income from gangs, so a huge temptation for dead ender kids. But I have no problem with what you suggest, we need to do more than just make drugs legal. We need poverty reduction and giving people a better chance at social moblity. The best way to do that would be to give their parents jobs that have a decent income.

[Signals.Cpl]

Are you seriously suggesting that if we reduced the availability of guns people would kill each other in the same numbers using cars? Are you not willing to agree that guns are very efficient killing machines - if we have them harder to get there would be less killing?

No I am not, but if we remove all guns can you honestly say that magically all violence will cease? Using cars as weapons is but one example, I can, using Google find ways to create weapons from everyday materials that I have at home which could be as lethal and could cause as many casualties if not more then guns. A pistol is a tool, nothing more, it becomes a weapon once it is placed in the hands of a person, removing the pistol and replacing it with a knife, screwdriver, acid, various kinds of bombs etc. I am giving you an example, it does not mean I am including every single weapon possible I am not saying that cars will be the alternative but for a motivated individual there will always be a way.

See above. You can't be serious about your argument here.

Why not? Look at recent wars, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents where denied certain weapons and they still found a means to accomplish their intended goal. If I am bent on committing violence, you can take away my rifle but I will find a way...

What more lethal means come to mind? If they exist, why aren't they using them now? Sense of fair play among criminals? What makes Switzerland successful is primarily that it is an equitable society with far less crime. The people who own "assault" rifles in Switzerland are or were part of the militia - they were well trained (remind you of something?) Once they leave the militia, the rifles are converted to semi-auto function, they are no longer able to fire on automatic.

IED's, you know those little things build in Afghanistan and Iraq that are build in some cases with household materials, Molotov cocktails which are just as dangerous, and dozens of variants of these things. What they do to the rifles is irrelevant, its still an assault rifle and it still is a dangerous weapon. The fact that a criminal could break in to any house of his choice and have a good chance of being armed with an assault rifle seems to me like it is counterproductive to your argument. Switzerland did not go about with restrictions, they have solved the underlying cause.

Drugs are a huge income from gangs, so a huge temptation for dead ender kids. But I have no problem with what you suggest, we need to do more than just make drugs legal. We need poverty reduction and giving people a better chance at social moblity. The best way to do that would be to give their parents jobs that have a decent income.

So is prostitution.

[Canuckistani]

No I am not, but if we remove all guns can you honestly say that magically all violence will cease?

See that is the strawman right there. What's with you conservatives that you only make black and white arguments. Are you seriously saying that if we could reduce the number of guns available to criminals we would not see a reduction in killings?

Why not? Look at recent wars, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents where denied certain weapons and they still found a means to accomplish their intended goal. If I am bent on committing violence, you can take away my rifle but I will find a way...

IED's, you know those little things build in Afghanistan and Iraq that are build in some cases with household materials, Molotov cocktails which are just as dangerous, and dozens of variants of these things. What they do to the rifles is irrelevant, its still an assault rifle and it still is a dangerous weapon. The fact that a criminal could break in to any house of his choice and have a good chance of being armed with an assault rifle seems to me like it is counterproductive to your argument. Switzerland did not go about with restrictions, they have solved the underlying cause.

By your logic, the US should have allowed them those weapons, since it would have prevented them from using more lethal means. Stupid US, what were they thinking. And if you seriously mean to tell me that the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq don't have access to rifles, you might want to do some research. They're using IEDs because they're going up against armored vehicles.

If molotov cocktails are as effective as a gun, why are criminals expending all that effort to get guns?

[Signals.Cpl]

See that is the strawman right there. What's with you conservatives that you only make black and white arguments. Are you seriously saying that if we could reduce the number of guns available to criminals we would not see a reduction in killings?

Please tell me why you want to legalize drugs. Now apply the same reasons to guns, if governments cannot control the flow of illegal drugs what makes you think that severely restricting access to guns will be any different?

By your logic, the US should have allowed them those weapons, since it would have prevented them from using more lethal means. Stupid US, what were they thinking. And if you seriously mean to tell me that the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq don't have access to rifles, you might want to do some research. They're using IEDs because they're going up against armored vehicles.

I never said rifles, I was saying to the same level of weapons. The US had overwhelming airpower, and armour as the insurgents did not posses the same level of sophistication weapon wise. You accuse me of making black and white arguments but you do the exact same thing, If I restrict your access to certain weapons then you will find a way to get your hands on something of equal or greater power.

If molotov cocktails are as effective as a gun, why are criminals expending all that effort to get guns?

Guns are easier and safer to the person who uses them, less volatile but if you can't get your hands on a gun you will use the more dangerous means.

[Canuckistani]

Please tell me why you want to legalize drugs. Now apply the same reasons to guns, if governments cannot control the flow of illegal drugs what makes you think that severely restricting access to guns will be any different?

Because most gun owners are legit and will not own guns if they can't legally do so. Most of them are not bent on getting high on shooting their guns.

I never said rifles, I was saying to the same level of weapons. The US had overwhelming airpower, and armour as the insurgents did not posses the same level of sophistication weapon wise. You accuse me of making black and white arguments but you do the exact same thing, If I restrict your access to certain weapons then you will find a way to get your hands on something of equal or greater power.

Yeah you did

Why not? Look at recent wars, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents where denied certain weapons and they still found a means to accomplish their intended goal. If I am bent on committing violence, you can take away my rifle but I will find a way...

Guns are easier and safer to the person who uses them, less volatile but if you can't get your hands on a gun you will use the more dangerous means.

No doubt, but not nearly to the same degree.

[Guest Peeves]

Guns aren't the problem, Somalis are.

Apparently...

Excerpt:

"After 2005, when the economy slumped, many of those job-seekers separated from their families and turned to gang activities, leading to a spike in homicides in the community. Since 2006, more than 34 Canadian-Somali men have been killed in Alberta."

Then there are the 'pirates.'

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/05/victim-and-alleged-gunman-in-eaton-centre-shooting-part-of-same-gang/

[bleeding heart]

Guns aren't the problem, Somalis are.

Apparently...

Excerpt:

Then there are the 'pirates.'

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/05/victim-and-alleged-gunman-in-eaton-centre-shooting-part-of-same-gang/

The real problem with Ccanadian society is the Somalis.

[guyser]

The real problem with Ccanadian society is the Somalis.

...with guns

[Signals.Cpl]

Because most gun owners are legit and will not own guns if they can't legally do so. Most of them are not bent on getting high on shooting their guns.

So your problem is with the legit gun owners?

Yeah you did

I will use clear examples next time, I guess I have to spell everything out for you.

No doubt, but not nearly to the same degree.

What?

[Guest Derek L]

Because most gun owners are legit and will not own guns if they can't legally do so. Most of them are not bent on getting high on shooting their guns.

At the peak of the Long Gun Registry, there were under 8 million non-restricted, restricted and prohibited firearms registered in Canada……..in the late 70s, the RCMP estimated during the FAC program the number of private firearms in Canada to be between 16-21 million. What do you think the levels of compliance of any future registry would be?

I’ve asked this question to several other posters, how many Canadians die a year from:

-Recreational/substance drug/alcohol abuse/use?

-Smoking?

- The side effects of Fast Foods/obesity?

-Car accidents?

-Firearms?

[Guest Derek L]

the judgement you speak of in granting bail/house arrest was predicated upon the past known events. I appreciate your agenda favours your want to prejudice the judgement that reflects upon past known events.

but again, you're avoiding/negating factual circumstance to fuel your agenda.

In hindsight, if a jury of Mr Husbands peers finds him guilty of these most recent charges, would you suggest that our justice system based on prior actions let the victims of the Eaton’s shooting down?

[Guest Derek L]

You didn't say he was charged with sexual assault. You said he was guilty of sexual assault.

Bottom of page 7

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20972&st=90

It looks like the Shooter, Christopher Husbands was charged with Sexual assault.

[waldo]

I question why a judge would let a violent sex offender off with house arrest……..If this wasn’t a case for mandatory minims for violent crime, I don’t know what is.

I want to know why a violent sex offender get house arrest in this country, and the police admit they can’t monitor all violent offenders on house arrest

And yet people still have faith in our justice system?

I hate to dampen your agenda... but... the guy wasn't a, as you say, 'violent sex offender'. Did you hear, apparently he was... accused... was on bail and the house arrest reflected on his past and not on the accusation.

you've labeled the guy a sexual assault offender... you've already been offered the distinction between accused and offender. The accused was out on bail to the accused charge... you've already been offered and acknowledged the qualification that the house arrest was for prior circumstance - nothing to do with the accused charge.

I appreciate the subtleties of accuracy act to dampen your agenda.

You didn't say he was charged with sexual assault. You said he was guilty of sexual assault.

Bottom of page 7

pathetic! Own your words... own them! Let's add your current MLW status message into the mix: "Toronto shooter was under house arrest for sexual assault…….I hope the victims sue the Province of Ontario."

[Guest Derek L]

pathetic! Own your words... own them! Let's add your current MLW status message into the mix: "Toronto shooter was under house arrest for sexual assault…….I hope the victims sue the Province of Ontario."

I certainly own the words at the bottom of page seven no?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20972&st=90

It looks like the Shooter, Christopher Husbands was charged with Sexual assault.........

[waldo]

I certainly own the words at the bottom of page seven no?

this is funny to you? Did you or did you not call the guy a "sexual offender"? Multiple times... with comment you leveraged off those false words of yours. Did you or did you not? Yes or No?

does your current MLW status message reflect upon your back-peddling? Yes or No?

own your words! All of them... not just the ones you wish to play out your standard silly-buggar act!

[Guest Derek L]

pathetic! Own your words... own them! Let's add your current MLW status message into the mix: "Toronto shooter was under house arrest for sexual assault…….I hope the victims sue the Province of Ontario."

Well we’re at it, care to highlight, as you allude to in your defence of the accused Eaton Center shooter, the passage in which I stated him a convicted sex offender Waldo?

Cleary, as attested to in the Star passage quoting his father, he has a history of violence……..He’s been charged with a sexual assault………And now one count of first degree murder and six counts of attempted murder, and you continue to defend such an animal and the failed justice system that allowed him to , allegedly, turn a public place into a shooting gallery………

And now this:

Accused Eaton Centre shooter worked for city

Two weeks before he allegedly opened fire in the Eaton Centre killing one and wounding six others, Christopher Husbands was a part-time City of Toronto employee working with kids in an after-school program.

Husbands — now facing one charge of first-degree murder and six charges of attempted murder in the wake of Saturday’s shooting — had the city job working with youth despite being under house arrest for a 2010 sexual assault charge still before the courts and a 2008 drug conviction, the Toronto Sun has learned.

Husbands, 23, worked for the city from November 2011 to May 18, 2012, according to city officials.

Despite his criminal background, Husbands worked at the Stan Wadlow Clubhouse in East York in the after-school recreation care (ARC) program. The program offers a variety of activities including sports, outdoor play, special events, creative activities and homework help.

City spokesman Wynna Brown wouldn’t say why Husbands’ employment ended, whether he submitted a criminal record check or if the city was aware of his criminal history when he was hired.

So the city of Toronto hired a man charged with sexual assault to work with Children?