wyly Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 In the good old days, rival gang members would meet somewhere away from public view to settle their scores. It was mostly about who was the toughest. Sometimes a truce was negotiated, sometimes the violence would stop at fists but at times knives were drawn on both sides. Nobody died that wasn't supposed to. and it's much harder to kill with a knife it's much more personal...it's more deliberate you need to make actual contact with the victim which doesn't come easily... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'm not open to carrying handguns anywhere. Merely pointing out a different scenario where carrying a handgun isn't about wanting to kill anybody unless in self-defense. but that's not the situation in canada so it's a non issue...Tough laws just don't do it - it's just for show by the politicians. Putting more money into enforcement, even with the current laws we have would do way more. with a 1 year minimum I don't think that's any deterrent... If tough laws were the answer, the US would be crime and drug free. Legalizing drugs would do even more. Not importing poor unskilled people with a culture of violence would help a bit too. Working to reduce poverty would be a big help.I don't have a problem with toughening up gun laws. Just don't sit back and think you've solved the problem - it's the least effective response we could give. yes I can't disagree with any of that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 i'm about as left wing as you'll find on this forum...gun control isn't a left or right issue... Bullshit it isn't, go down the line and look at the vast majority of people and or groups that want to heavily restrict or outright ban firearms ownership and then tell me honestly that the vast majority of those people aren't left leaning, you're simply wrong on that one. The left is far too emotional and irrational when it comes to this issue, it has to be the guns, it couldnt be the failed polices of the left that has built these inner city communities where gun violence thrives, no never, couldn't be, blame the inanimate object. Easier that then reconsidering you're ideology. No doubt we need to build more basketball courts and pay single mothers even more to keep having children without fathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/world/canada-shooting/index.html?hpt=wo_c2 So what is it? Is it because this was in a poor area of Toronto? (Apparently the BBQ was in a subsidized townhouse complex) Is it because City Council didn't ban bullets last week like resident communist Adam Vaughan wanted? Or is it because there are laws against using hard drugs, allowing gang violence like this to proliferate. I suspect this will be met with a lot of apathy because it wasn't in a mall like the Eaton's Centre shooting. Innocent people were injured though. I don't have the answers. I don't think anyone here does. Toronto is a relatively safe city but there are places where it's not so safe. Events like this defy explanations unless of course you want it to fulfill some kind of agenda you have. (ei Gun Control, Drug Prohibition, Poverty) It's because some mother allowed their son, who was in a gang, to attend a party, and that got people killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) It's because some mother allowed their son, who was in a gang, to attend a party, and that got people killed. well that mother should not have allowed her son to join that gang, obviously. Mothers don't let your babies grow up to be gangsters, as DeWillie Nelson sang so poignantly. Edited July 18, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 and it's much harder to kill with a knife it's much more personal...it's more deliberate you need to make actual contact with the victim which doesn't come easily... And yet MORE people are stabbed then shot in this country, and a couple of years ago MORE people were killed with a knife then a gun, doesn't really help the theory that were safer if they only use knives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) And yet MORE people are stabbed then shot in this country, and a couple of years ago MORE people were killed with a knife then a gun, doesn't really help the theory that were safer if they only use knives. We need a Knife/Sword Registry. Edited July 18, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 We are safer if gangbangers only use knives because they're very poor shots. With knives they'll mostly kill each other instead of bystanders. But yes, we should make guns freely available to anybody - bet it would knock hell out of those knife killing statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 We are safer if gangbangers only use knives because they're very poor shots. With knives they'll mostly kill each other instead of bystanders. But yes, we should make guns freely available to anybody - bet it would knock hell out of those knife killing statistics. Perhaps we should have government-funded target shooting lessons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I think our drug laws are stupid and are part of the problem but don't ask me to feel sorry for the poor dealer who losses his ability to threaten someone with a gun, I just don't care...threaten someone with an illegal handgun throw them in prison for 20...I don't disagree with punishing someone for threatening people with a gun. However, the verb "threaten" and the verb "possess" are two different words.handguns crimes were rare and now are becoming common, we've had 25 murders in one gang war in the last few years in calgary all with illegal handguns, it is a growing problem...we need to end the problem before it gets worse, continuing as we are has done nothing to stop it... I'm going to need to see some stats on handguns used in crime to support this. I know Edmonton had an anomalous year last year. However, without clearly charted statistics on this, it's all just anecdotal. It could be an issue of perception of handgun crime because the overall statistics show that violent crime is down significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 handguns were never designed for hunting animals they really suck at that, they were meant for killing people at close range and nothing else...if someone has one illegally it's a safe assumption he/she is not a hunter/target shooter/or collector, they intend to use it on people and nothing else...you may say they may not intend to kill but when you point a gun at someone that is absolutely the message you send "I will kill you"... You're creating a false equivalence between threatening someone and murdering them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) It won't but in Toronto that's their plan of the Left-wing http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/06/toronto-council-bullet-ban218.html Political opportunism. It's disgusting. I hate it when politicians do that. Even if I agree with banning handguns. Edited July 18, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Perhaps we should have government-funded target shooting lessons. We do. Join the Forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Seriously, F mandatory minimums. Parliament cannot foresee every possible circumstance. That's why we have courts. They hear every last detail about a case and render a decision. Stop trying to strip away fair hearings. Remember that gun registry you hated? Imagine if not registering your firearm sometime in the future made it illegal to possess it. Do you think it's fair and just that a person ought to receive a minimum 3 years in prison for that? With a restricted firearm, or one that has had it’s serial number filed off, or to add, if one doesn’t have an ATT etc it is, and rightfully so, a crime. I agree with you about mandatory minimums though to some degree…………The little old widow that has in her basement (Perhaps even unknown to her) a “trophy” her late husband brought back from the war shouldn’t be treated the same as criminal knocking off a 7/11.……Just as the legal gun owner that sent off his or her paperwork to renew their licence and it’s lost in the mail, shouldn’t be treated the same as one of these shooters…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Bullshit it isn't, go down the line and look at the vast majority of people and or groups that want to heavily restrict or outright ban firearms ownership and then tell me honestly that the vast majority of those people aren't left leaning, you're simply wrong on that one. The left is far too emotional and irrational when it comes to this issue, it has to be the guns, it couldnt be the failed polices of the left that has built these inner city communities where gun violence thrives, no never, couldn't be, blame the inanimate object. Easier that then reconsidering you're ideology. No doubt we need to build more basketball courts and pay single mothers even more to keep having children without fathers. Indeed, most of our current gun laws pertaining to handguns/restricted firearms have been in place since the 30s……….Quite obviously “guns” aren’t the problem, but the social conditions that premeditate their usage illegally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 I agree with you about mandatory minimums though to some degree…………The little old widow that has in her basement (Perhaps even unknown to her) a “trophy” her late husband brought back from the war shouldn’t be treated the same as criminal knocking off a 7/11.……Just as the legal gun owner that sent off his or her paperwork to renew their licence and it’s lost in the mail, shouldn’t be treated the same as one of these shooters….My point exactly. It doesn't matter what the law is. Mandatory minimums are just that -- mandatory. Regardless of the circumstances. I can't foresee all the possible examples of someone not deserving of the mandatory minimums, of situations where it would be cruel to incarcerate them in a federal penitentiary (because that's where you go if it's longer than 2 years longer, hence 2 years less a day sentences). That's the point. A judge hears the case, every last painful detail is analysed and argued by the Crown and Defence. The judge then determines an appropriate setnence based on those circumstances if the person is guilty, not some minimum legislated by politicking parliamentarians. Frankly, in the interest of all of our rights, I would like to know that I'm going to get a fair shake at a trial, even if I am guilty, and that the judge will decide based on MY situation what kind of sentence particular to me I deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 My point exactly. It doesn't matter what the law is. Mandatory minimums are just that -- mandatory. Regardless of the circumstances. I can't foresee all the possible examples of someone not deserving of the mandatory minimums, of situations where it would be cruel to incarcerate them in a federal penitentiary (because that's where you go if it's longer than 2 years longer, hence 2 years less a day sentences). That's the point. A judge hears the case, every last painful detail is analysed and argued by the Crown and Defence. The judge then determines an appropriate setnence based on those circumstances if the person is guilty, not some minimum legislated by politicking parliamentarians. Frankly, in the interest of all of our rights, I would like to know that I'm going to get a fair shake at a trial, even if I am guilty, and that the judge will decide based on MY situation what kind of sentence particular to me I deserve. I agree to an extent as to mandatory minimums……….a 20 year old at party with a little pot shouldn’t be put away with Tony Montana, but I’m in favour for them with regards to violent crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) I agree to an extent as to mandatory minimums……….a 20 year old at party with a little pot shouldn’t be put away with Tony Montana, but I’m in favour for them with regards to violent crime. They're unnecessary, even for violent crime imo. Violent crime has been falling for decades. The vast majority of sentences are appropriate. We're talking an extremely small number that may not actually be sentenced right. That's why we have a system of appeals, so that a single judge does not get the final say. Sentencing is not broken, so it doesn't need fixing. The mandatory minimum route has a number of shortfalls that have been well documented. Ssee: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/eweek06/pdf/minsentc.pdf These kinds of legislative changes don't make any sense whatsoever. Edited July 19, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 And yet MORE people are stabbed then shot in this country, and a couple of years ago MORE people were killed with a knife then a gun, doesn't really help the theory that were safer if they only use knives. eeew well done Sherlock awesome powers of logic ya got there ....there's probably a half billion knives in the country, how many illegal handguns do think there are, in the thousands at most... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 You're creating a false equivalence between threatening someone and murdering them. no im not, if a criminal is pointing a gun at you you assume he will do as he says otherwise there is no point in doing so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) I'm going to need to see some stats on handguns used in crime to support this. I know Edmonton had an anomalous year last year. However, without clearly charted statistics on this, it's all just anecdotal. It could be an issue of perception of handgun crime because the overall statistics show that violent crime is down significantly. no it's not anecdotal 25 deaths in one gang war, and there have others handgun unrelated to the mini war...and a few innocent bystanders got taken down as well... Edited July 19, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 They're unnecessary, even for violent crime imo. Violent crime has been falling for decades. The vast majority of sentences are appropriate. We're talking an extremely small number that may not actually be sentenced right. That's why we have a system of appeals, so that a single judge does not get the final say.well that makes no sense at all cyber...you're suggesting we be nice to violent offenders? the crime rates haven't falling because we're nice to criminals they've fallen because demographics have changed, the population is aging not because we're lenient or progressive with sentencing... Sentencing is not broken, so it doesn't need fixing. The mandatory minimum route has a number of shortfalls that have been well documented. Ssee: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/eweek06/pdf/minsentc.pdf These kinds of legislative changes don't make any sense whatsoever.hey ya lets give dave picton day parole...sorry no...there are lots of soft crimes where criminals can be rehabilitated but when it comes to violent criminals I don't care, these people get what they deserve and more...no pity from me, get them off the streets for 20 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1228632--man-shot-to-death-in-north-york-schoolyard Clearly this is Rob Ford's fault. Edited July 19, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1228632--man-shot-to-death-in-north-york-schoolyard Clearly this is Rob Ford's fault. Oh Boges, it goes back much further than that! Obviously, it started with Mike Harris! That being said, I am beginning to wonder if once again we are seeing the results of an actual difference in how some people's brains are wired. Could it be that those of a "liberal" persuasion, for want of a better term, are incapable of dealing with such problems? Many if not all of these social problems are getting worse, not better, despite all the money and different programs being thrown at them. People are being shot at street parties and the call goes up for more community centres! Perhaps (and only perhaps!) there is some merit there but at best it would take a generation to have any effect. We have babes in arms being shot NOW! It is simple reality that today a gang banger knows that the chances of his being caught are rather low. What's more, even if he IS caught the sentence is liable to be comparatively light! So where is the deterrence? It is impossible to have a policeman everywhere. How can the police possibly protect us as individuals? The answer is that they can't! They never could! Police protect us as a group. They cannot prevent those first few victims to some Marc Lepin type of wingnut. They can only respond after the fact, hopefully before the body count grows too large. The complaint on the Toronto news this morning was that no one will come forth as witnesses to these shootings. What an incredibly asinine attitude of the police to take! Those people are well aware that if they help the police the gang bangers will certainly hurt if not kill them! Including their children! The police CANNOT protect any witness who comes forth! It is certain that most if not all of those bystanders would love nothing more than to see the thugs arrested but it would be suicide to help the process. Especially when often a gang banger, immediately after being nabbed, is released on bail so he is free to go after whoever "tattled". Even if the perp IS held in custody there is no problem with his associates to find out who to "silence". In effect, Toronto Police are scolding people for not being willing to commit suicide to help the police do their job! Meanwhile, the calls go up for more basketball courts. Any practical suggestion in such matters is ALWAYS shot down by the "lib-left". Mandatory minimum sentences? Oh no, too cruel and what's more, unnecessary. Abolish the Youthful Offenders Act? Oh no, that is also cruel and unusual! To anyone of a logical, cause and effect type of mind, the situation is plain as the nose on your face. Criminals commit criminal acts because they think they can get away with it! You can only fight that with real deterrence. Unless they think there is a good chance they will be caught AND if caught they will face a SIGNIFICANT sentence then they will not just continue to perform such acts but they will escalate the severity of them! Calls to do nothing because "they don't shoot babies all that often - the numbers are down" is frankly reprehensible! Tell that to the mother of the baby! Secondly, we must abandon this false comfort of expecting the police to protect us as individuals. They may be wonderful, dedicated people but they can not do the impossible! To say that reactive protection after an initial murder or murders is sufficient is to condemn us all to a cruel lottery, where if you win you lose! People must be allowed to defend both themselves and their families and also their property. If the judicial system refuses to change to better protect us as individuals then we must be allowed to do what we can for ourselves. If necessary, we should be allowed to carry guns! Of course, some folks will go screaming yellow zonkers at the very thought but again, are they incapable of dealing with the facts at hand? Inevitably we hear that if allowed to bear arms people will start shooting each other over the slightest provocation! The streets will become a hail of bullets! Little old ladies will get drunk and shoot their husbands! Husbands will leave loaded rifles beside the cribs of their sleeping toddlers! Enough! You get the idea. I truly believe that those least equipped to deal with the reality of stressful factors like criminal violence have been in control of the system that is supposed to cope with such behavior. As a Utilitarian, I point to the very fact that such violence is happening today as proof that their methods aren't working! Unless they can come up with methods that DO work and TODAY, not a generation from now, then I say they should get the hell out of the way and allow someone to try other methods. Meanwhile, the next time some police spokesperson complains about witnesses not stepping forward, someone should let loose with an egg or a tomato or two. Frankly, it is a disgustingly callous approach and they should be chastized for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) As a Utilitarian, I point to the very fact that such violence is happening today as proof that their methods aren't working! As a Utilitarian, you should be more concerned about the degree and scope of pain and suffering that is endured by those involved in these situations as well as the likelihood of recurrence. You can throw that in your cost-benefit analysis, and you would probably find that this whole thing is really not a big deal at all, but it is a good PR opp for the politicians. Edited July 19, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.