Hey Toronto has made International News.

[Guest Derek L]

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-china

[Guest Derek L]

Despite 2004 arrest, gang leader’s influence still looms large in Toronto neighbourhoods marred by violence

And another one:

Man shot in the head, Toronto police say

[Argus]

Stopping the illegal importing of hand guns is about as tough as stopping the importing of illicit drugs.

That's not true. Its a LOT easier. That's because there's never been a huge demand for illegal guns. Not, at any rate, like the demand for drugs. That's partly because you can buy a hit of crack for ten bucks but a Glock will set you back a thousand bucks.

So it's not like every urban street corner has a gun dealer. There just aren't that many of them because there just aren't that many customers with the money to buy. You can't stop it coming across, but you can do sting jobs trying to buy guns from those willing to sell, and then lock them up for ten years. What's that do? It increases the price. If you're going to get ten years for getting caught you want a bigger premium. So guns cost more and that further lessens demand. You also slap people into prison for minimum terms whenever they're caught with one. That again lessens demand. You put out a reward for information about anyone who is known to have one, a thousand bucks. That means those who do have them are going to keep quiet about them and not swagger around showing them off. Once again, that lessens demand. The end result is fewer people with illegal hand guns.

The Tories have been moving in that direction, but of course, the judiciary has been furiously resisting. The judiciary seems to believe that the more guns in the hands of criminals the better.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Argus

[Wild Bill]

That's not true. Its a LOT easier. That's because there's never been a huge demand for illegal guns. Not, at any rate, like the demand for drugs. That's partly because you can buy a hit of crack for ten bucks but a Glock will set you back a thousand bucks.

So it's not like every urban street corner has a gun dealer. There just aren't that many of them because there just aren't that many customers with the money to buy. You can't stop it coming across, but you can do sting jobs trying to buy guns from those willing to sell, and then lock them up for ten years. What's that do? It increases the price. If you're going to get ten years for getting caught you want a bigger premium. So guns cost more and that further lessens demand. You also slap people into prison for minimum terms whenever they're caught with one. That again lessens demand. You put out a reward for information about anyone who is known to have one, a thousand bucks. That means those who do have them are going to keep quiet about them and not swagger around showing them off. Once again, that lessens demand. The end result is fewer people with illegal hand guns.

The Tories have been moving in that direction, but of course, the judiciary has been furiously resisting. The judiciary seems to believe that the more guns in the hands of criminals the better.

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.

[cybercoma]

The Tories have been moving in that direction, but of course, the judiciary has been furiously resisting.

I agree with everything else in your post, but do you have evidence to back this claim up?

[Guest Derek L]

And Christ was a carpenter:

Four more shot in Toronto

About two hours later, officers said two men in their 20s were shot while sitting inside a car. One victim was shot in the arm, while the other had been shot in the leg, police said. Both of their injuries are deemed non-life threatening.

Then, round 4 a.m. Saturday, a man was shot in the stomach in the city’s east end. Police said a man, believed to be in his 40s, suffered multiple gunshot wounds to his abdominal area. His is in serious condition and there is no motive for that shooting.

It is not known if the shootings are related.

[Argus]

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.

And as I said, pretty easy to deal with that sort of thing. You simply keep sending undercover cops into divey hotels and bars looking for guns. And as soon as they get one they send the seller to prison for ten years without parole. Before very long sellers are VERY wary of selling to people they don't know. That alone makes it harder to obtain a firearm. Sellers also want more money because it's now more risky. You can deal with it pretty easily if you just focus attention on the issue. You'll never get them all, but you'll make it much more dangerous to be in that business, and cause many to drop out while arresting others. You CAN make it much more expensive and difficult to buy illegal hand guns.

[Argus]

I agree with everything else in your post, but do you have evidence to back this claim up?

Earlier this month, an Ontario Court judge struck down the automatic three-year sentence for firearms trafficking, saying it was disproportionate. Justice Paul Bellefontaine said a crack dealer who offered to sell an undercover police officer a non-existent gun should not have to face the mandatory minimum sentence.

In February, another Ontario judge said sending a first-time offender to prison for three years for possessing a loaded gun amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment" and declared the minimum sentence unconstitutional.

cbc

[Boges]

And as I said, pretty easy to deal with that sort of thing. You simply keep sending undercover cops into divey hotels and bars looking for guns. And as soon as they get one they send the seller to prison for ten years without parole. Before very long sellers are VERY wary of selling to people they don't know. That alone makes it harder to obtain a firearm. Sellers also want more money because it's now more risky. You can deal with it pretty easily if you just focus attention on the issue. You'll never get them all, but you'll make it much more dangerous to be in that business, and cause many to drop out while arresting others. You CAN make it much more expensive and difficult to buy illegal hand guns.

Again I support any effort to deal with illegal guns by law enforcement. But when you have an undefended border, it's very difficult to stop people from smuggling across the border.

But of course that's not what people like are incompetent Premier want to do. They want to create a whole knew level of criminal by making all hand guns illegal. Of course doing that won't stop illegal gun owners from shooting other people but it makes people feel good I suppose.

BTW your solution involves a mandatory minimum. Something people on the left rage against.

Make guns illegal but don't make the penalty that harsh because it'll ruin people's lives.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Boges

[Wild Bill]

And as I said, pretty easy to deal with that sort of thing. You simply keep sending undercover cops into divey hotels and bars looking for guns. And as soon as they get one they send the seller to prison for ten years without parole. Before very long sellers are VERY wary of selling to people they don't know. That alone makes it harder to obtain a firearm. Sellers also want more money because it's now more risky. You can deal with it pretty easily if you just focus attention on the issue. You'll never get them all, but you'll make it much more dangerous to be in that business, and cause many to drop out while arresting others. You CAN make it much more expensive and difficult to buy illegal hand guns.

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.

[Argus]

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.

Explain why it would never work.

Money is not an issue. The cost of adding a few squads of mounties to hit known regions of trouble, ie toronto, montreal, vancouver, is not that great. Gangs aren't buying guns in rural Ontario. They're buying them on Yonge Street.

[eyeball]

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.

On the face of it their attitude doesn't sound that dissimilar to what we're told we should all adopt to survive the dangers of a dog eat dog every man for himself world - a rugged entrepreneurial pragmatism, a willingness to take risks...I mean, c'mon they even carry concealed weapons in case they need to protect themselves for crying out loud.

Tell me they're not living the quintessential wet-dream.

[Wild Bill]

Explain why it would never work.

Money is not an issue. The cost of adding a few squads of mounties to hit known regions of trouble, ie toronto, montreal, vancouver, is not that great. Gangs aren't buying guns in rural Ontario. They're buying them on Yonge Street.

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!

[mentalfloss]

Why on earth would he think such a thing? The papers are full of reports of such shootings!

A utilitarian would think that because the total number of people involved in all shootings is a relatively small number compared to the total number of people within a particular territory and the rest of us really aren't affected in any significant way. In the neighbourhood which is the site of some major event like this, there may be cause for concern. But on a city-wide level or provincial, federal, or international level - it doesn't really matter much.

Something like this may happen again next month or in a couple of years. With the crime rate constantly going down anyway, it really won't make any significant difference to national security if we enact some kind of policy change unless we're absolutely certain it would completely eradicate all forms of violence.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Boges]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/563907_476120232417448_150887566_n.jpg

[Wild Bill]

A utilitarian would think that because the total number of people involved in all shootings is a relatively small number compared to the total number of people within a particular territory and the rest of us really aren't affected in any significant way. In the neighbourhood which is the site of some major event like this, there may be cause for concern. But on a city-wide level or provincial, federal, or international level - it doesn't really matter much.

Something like this may happen again next month or in a couple of years. With the crime rate constantly going down anyway, it really won't make any significant difference to national security if we enact some kind of policy change unless we're absolutely certain it would completely eradicate all forms of violence.

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!

[cybercoma]

Earlier this month, an Ontario Court judge struck down the automatic three-year sentence for firearms trafficking, saying it was disproportionate. Justice Paul Bellefontaine said a crack dealer who offered to sell an undercover police officer a non-existent gun should not have to face the mandatory minimum sentence.

In February, another Ontario judge said sending a first-time offender to prison for three years for possessing a loaded gun amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment" and declared the minimum sentence unconstitutional.

cbc

Mandatory minimums are completely unconstitutional. Did you read the details about those cases? I happen to agree with what you said in your post, but I also agree with the judges' decisions in those cases.

[Argus]

Mandatory minimums are completely unconstitutional. Did you read the details about those cases? I happen to agree with what you said in your post, but I also agree with the judges' decisions in those cases.

This is what I mean when I say Judges write laws based on their own personal feelings and ideological beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding mandatory minimums. The judges simply decided that they didn't think that was fair. No real surprise since the ongoing complaint about judges is they don't live in the real world. They're isolated in high income enclaves without fear of crime or any real understanding of its effects on the population. Thus they feel more sympathy for the murderers and robbers and rapists than care or concern about the safety of the citizenry.

The real reason why we have so much violence as compared to other countries is not because our laws aren't severe enough but because judges refuse to enforce those laws. Thus the legal system protects criminals and their ability to repeatedly commit crime. If ordinary citizens, say the jury members, were allowed to decide on what the punishment ought to be you can bet sentences would be a lot more severe.

[cybercoma]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding mandatory minimums.

You completely lack any understanding whatsoever about judicial reasoning and legal philosophy. You constantly and wrongly say that judges just make crap up off the top of their heads and write their own laws. It's clear from the decision and the explanation why the mandatory minimums in those cases would have been unconstitutional. It's about unfairly sentencing someone that doesn't deserve to be locked away in a federal penitentiary for 3 years simply because the government one day believed that it could foresee all possible circumstances. It can't. And if judges don't have the ability to hear the facts of a case, then people are being sentenced without due consideration of their cases.

The primary challenge that has come up is the crackhead that tried to sell a gun to an undercover cop. What a moron, right? Guy was strung out on drugs and needed money. You know what he was trying to do? He was trying to get cash to buy drugs. He was trying to rob the undercover cop by selling a gun that he never had nor did he have any intention of delivering on that. Since Parliament decided that there should be a minimum sentence, this crackhead thief was supposed to get 3 years in a federal prison for stealing an undercover cop's money.

It is in no way fair and just for the judge to give that kind of a sentence for those circumstances. Erasing three years of someone's life is something that's typically reserve for something more serious than trying to make off with a few hundred bucks of someone's money.

Don't get me wrong. If that's the route we're going to go, I'm giddy with anticipation how they'll treat the likes of Bernie Madoff, who make off with a hell of a lot more than a few hundred bucks of people's money.

Edited July 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

You completely lack any understanding whatsoever about judicial reasoning and legal philosophy. You constantly and wrongly say that judges just make crap up off the top of their heads and write their own laws.

Unfortunately, some of them do.

It's clear from the decision and the explanation why the mandatory minimums in those cases would have been unconstitutional. It's about unfairly sentencing someone that doesn't deserve to be locked away in a federal penitentiary for 3 years simply because the government one day believed that it could foresee all possible circumstances.

And it's clear you don't understand the purpose of mandatory minimums. They're not designed just for the individual. They're designed pour encourager les autres. If everyone knows that being caught with an illegal weapon will instantly get you slapped into prison for a long time then they will think twice before ever fooling around with them. When you make this clear then you don't really have to care if some moron decides he wants to involve himself with guns anyway, even if he might actually not intend any harm. Unfair? I disagree. Throw them in prison for a long time. All of them. That way there's no confusion and no uncertainty. I think the Tories should give the courts the big middle finger and make this legislation even stricter, then exempt it from constitutional review with the opt-out clause.

The primary challenge that has come up is the crackhead that tried to sell a gun to an undercover cop. What a moron, right? Guy was strung out on drugs and needed money. You know what he was trying to do? He was trying to get cash to buy drugs. He was trying to rob the undercover cop by selling a gun that he never had nor did he have any intention of delivering on that. Since Parliament decided that there should be a minimum sentence, this crackhead thief was supposed to get 3 years in a federal prison for stealing an undercover cop's money.

I have no issue with that whatsoever. Throw all the crackheads into prison. They're a waste of skin tissue anyway. Give him a hammer and make him break bricks for a few years. Might even bring him back to a semblance of humanity.

[Wild Bill]

Unfortunately, some of them do.

And it's clear you don't understand the purpose of mandatory minimums. They're not designed just for the individual. They're designed pour encourager les autres. If everyone knows that being caught with an illegal weapon will instantly get you slapped into prison for a long time then they will think twice before ever fooling around with them. When you make this clear then you don't really have to care if some moron decides he wants to involve himself with guns anyway, even if he might actually not intend any harm. Unfair? I disagree. Throw them in prison for a long time. All of them. That way there's no confusion and no uncertainty. I think the Tories should give the courts the big middle finger and make this legislation even stricter, then exempt it from constitutional review with the opt-out clause.

I have no issue with that whatsoever. Throw all the crackheads into prison. They're a waste of skin tissue anyway. Give him a hammer and make him break bricks for a few years. Might even bring him back to a semblance of humanity.

I would agree with you, Argus. What is a fair sentence for simple theft or fraud?

To me, 3 years sounds about right!

[Argus]

I would agree with you, Argus. What is a fair sentence for simple theft or fraud?

To me, 3 years sounds about right!

There are too many 'depends' on that question, such as intent, harm caused, amount and circumstances. I generally don't like the idea of putting people in prison for first offenses that are non-violent because it winds up cost society a lot more than the initial crime. If someone steals a $200 Ipod do we want to spend $120,000 to keep them in prison for three years?

We have a deep, societal interest in using brute force justice to keep people from screwing around with guns, but I don't think we're ready to do the same just to stop someone shoplifting.

On the other hand if you defrauded an elderly person of their life's savings, well..

Of course, in that case my preferred punishment would be that you are now responsible for taking care of that elderly person for the rest of their life, with regular canings if you fail to be properly attentive.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Argus

[cybercoma]

There's too many "depends" for every case. That's why mandatory minimums don't work. Period.

Nobody goes out and commits a crime expecting to be caught or thinking of the consequences.

[bleeding heart]

There's too many "depends" for every case. That's why mandatory minimums don't work. Period.

Nobody goes out and commits a crime expecting to be caught or thinking of the consequences.

I agree. For example, if the death penalty were actually a deterrent...it would never be implemented.

[Argus]

There's too many "depends" for every case. That's why mandatory minimums don't work. Period.

Nobody goes out and commits a crime expecting to be caught or thinking of the consequences.

Unfortunately, they are sometimes neccessary, often because of the demonstrated incompetence and lack of interest in the protection of the public typically exhibited by people in black robes. I believe this is such a case.