Boges Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/19/mcguinty-useless-on-gun-crime Premier Dalton McGuinty and his merry band of interchangeable attorneys general are beneath contempt when it comes to fighting urban gun crime.Every time another innocent kid is murdered, there they are out in front of the cameras, bleating for a national handgun ban because it means they don’t have to do anything since that’s a federal issue. Never mind that handguns have effectively been banned since 1934 and that it hasn’t worked because it’s illegal, not legal, guns that are the problem. McGuinty’s Liberals don’t care about reality, as long as the smoke they’re blowing keeps the spotlight off their own miserable failings on this issue. So there was Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen Wednesday calling for a national handgun ban in the wake of the latest tragedy, as did his predecessors Chris Bentley and Michael Bryant, after McGuinty first called for a ban following the Boxing Day murder of Jane Creba in 2005. But in all that time, McGuinty has done diddly-squat on something his government could do to help fight the scourge of urban gun crime. That is, amend provincial legislation to make it easier for city council and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) to evict convicted, gun-toting thugs from community housing projects — where the latest mass shooting occurred — as Coun. Michael Thompson and others have long advocated. Yes McDalton because banning handguns would have stopped that shooting Monday. If anyone wants to own a hang gun in Canada they have to jump through hoops to get it registered and they have to carry it around in a locked box. Didn't David Miller ban hand guns in Toronto? did that stop people using illegal hand guns to shoot other people? Why must people react to shootings like this and immediately try to criminalize legal gun owners to score political points? Such a ban would do nothing to stop the type of shootings we've seen in Toronto lately. If they want to do something maybe they should clamp down on the border and prevent people from running guns on Indian reserves. But those solutions aren't PCs, it's much better to go after law-abiding gun owners. This guy finds new ways to piss me off all the time. Quote
Boges Posted July 20, 2012 Author Report Posted July 20, 2012 This week we found out that moving the power plant is actually going to cost $190 million and the former head of ORNGE said that the government knew everything he was doing. Did McDalton want to comment on that? NO!!!! But there's a shooting and he starts touring Toronto community housing and wants to tell Stephen Harper to ban hang guns nationally. The man is a disgrace. Quote
Guest Manny Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Drunk driving laws are useless as well, since they are after the fact, and people will always continue to drink and drive. Same with prohibition of alcohol to minors. Edited July 20, 2012 by Manny Quote
Boges Posted July 20, 2012 Author Report Posted July 20, 2012 Drunk driving laws are useless as well, since they are after the fact, and people will always continue to drink and drive. Same with prohibition of alcohol to minors. Not really you can stop someone for driving erratically before they cause an accident or stop them at a RIDE program. Also the penalties for drunk driving after the fact are more severe than if said accident was caused by carelessness or driver error. There are already significant gun laws that make what happened on Monday illegal making new laws is just misdirection by governments. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 "When in trouble, when in doubt! Run in circles! Scream and shout!" That way it LOOKS like you are doing something! Much easier than using your brain to come up with something that actually WORKS! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Topaz Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 I've listened to many people with their views on the TV and what I came away with is one, the community should be listened to more for advise to stop the violence and programs put in place to help the young people who think violence is the only way and all gangs should be considered "terrorists" and against the law. One problem with the program is the MAYOR, he thinks its a waste of taxpayers money, but those communities that need help also pay taxes, or doesn't the mayor really care? Secondly, more man-power on the borders for these guns coming in and more important , who is bring them in. There's big moiney behind the drugs and the guns and more man power to find out who. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 I've listened to many people with their views on the TV and what I came away with is one, the community should be listened to more for advise to stop the violence and programs put in place to help the young people who think violence is the only way and all gangs should be considered "terrorists" and against the law. One problem with the program is the MAYOR, he thinks its a waste of taxpayers money, but those communities that need help also pay taxes, or doesn't the mayor really care? Secondly, more man-power on the borders for these guns coming in and more important , who is bring them in. There's big moiney behind the drugs and the guns and more man power to find out who. If only it were so simple! We HAVE been throwing money at such problems, for a long time. How are we doing so far? More money in itself is not the answer. The problem with putting programs in place is that the type of people who can work in such programs and successfully motivate young people are rather rare. Most are just naive people with big hearts. Kids only laugh at them! Worse yet, nothing is easier to become corrupted than a social program. Politicians will shovel in money because it makes them look good to voters but nobody ever goes back and audits the money to make sure it was spent wisely! Google up "Toronto housing project scandals" and you will find pages and pages! More manpower for drugs and guns is futile. That's a war just too big to ever possibly win! You can't win with Prohibition laws. All you do is drive the prices up, making more profit for the drug lords. You could put every law officer in Canada at the borders to try to catch all the illegal guns and it would be just a spit in the ocean. The number of shipments across the border that you would need to search could be piled up to reach to the moon! Plus, community programs, even if they are done properly with competent people, only have a chance to help the NEXT generation! They are not going to change all the existing gang bangers today. I would suggest first of all to split up housing projects! Making huge projects is just making prefab ghettos. You end up with a community too large to police, filled with the people who most need policing. It would work far better to build a lot of much smaller housing projects, keeping each one small enough that it could be more easily monitored and managed. Why do all these projects have to be in certain spots within Toronto anyway? If McGuinty truly wants to do something more than look good he could take these projects out of the hands of Toronto as a city. Why not scatter small projects around the province, in more rural areas? Maybe if disadvantaged youths had to grow up in Owen Sound or Clinton they would fare better! If kept in small groups then the culture of the more rural town would likely make them adapt to better small town values. Right now Jane and Finch is simply a University community for crime! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
The_Squid Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 We HAVE been throwing money at such problems, for a long time. How are we doing so far? Not bad.... For comparisons to various cities in North America, in 2007 for example, the homicide rate for the city of Toronto was 3.3 per 100,000 people, yet for Detroit (33.8), Atlanta (19.7), Chicago (15.5), San Francisco (13.6), Boston (10.3) and New York City (6.3) it was higher, while it was only marginally lower in Vancouver (3.1), San Jose (2.9) and Montreal (2.6).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto What the homicide rate by guns is, I don't know. But, in general, Toronto isn't really a very violent city. The stats for cities south of the border is staggering... Quote
Boges Posted July 20, 2012 Author Report Posted July 20, 2012 Not bad.... What the homicide rate by guns is, I don't know. But, in general, Toronto isn't really a very violent city. The stats for cities south of the border is staggering... All the more hilarious that McDalton is choosing now to become a gun control advocate. Illegal gun and drug problems are fused. The fact that dealing drugs is far more lucrative than "honest" work is a problem. People are going to get guns and drugs here whether it's illegal or not. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 Boges, why are you unable to use the McGuinty name correctly? Is it really that difficult to follow the forum rules? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Boges Posted July 20, 2012 Author Report Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Boges, why are you unable to use the McGuinty name correctly? Is it really that difficult to follow the forum rules? It's because I have so much contempt for me. It's my nickname for the jerk. I do use his name in the thread's title and his name is in the editorial I posted so it should be obvious who I'm talking about. Edited July 20, 2012 by Boges Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 Not bad.... What the homicide rate by guns is, I don't know. But, in general, Toronto isn't really a very violent city. The stats for cities south of the border is staggering... You should copy your reply and send it to the mother of that baby who was shot during that Toronto street party. I'm sure you will make her feel much better! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
The_Squid Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) You should copy your reply and send it to the mother of that baby who was shot during that Toronto street party. I'm sure you will make her feel much better! Got her email address? Can we dispense with the emotional rhetoric? THINK ABOUT THE INNOCENT BABIES!!! I think these programs that we are "throwing money at" have been working. Why do you think Toronto's homicide rate is so low? Edited July 20, 2012 by The_Squid Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Got her email address? Can we dispense with the emotional rhetoric? THINK ABOUT THE INNOCENT BABIES!!! I think these programs that we are "throwing money at" have been working. Why do you think Toronto's homicide rate is so low? Low is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, even one is too many! How ironic that I am the one taking that position, the man who is constantly accused of being an evil conservative here on this forum! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/16/toronto-scarborough-shooting.html?cmp=rss "Police have been dealing with a sharp increase in the number of shootings in the city of Toronto this year compared with last. According to preliminary statistics posted on the police website, there were 140 reported shooting incidents as of July 16. That’s an increase of 32.1 per cent compared with the number reported at the same time last year." We really should look at trends, to see if things are getting better or worse. We should also stop using the USA as our only point of comparison. There are many Asian and European cities FAR safer than Toronto! If someone wanted to play with stats, we could have an increase in one year of 300% and still find some city somewhere that was worse! Are we going to just play with stats so that we don't APPEAR so bad or should we actually try to LOWER the number of incidents and make the city safer in reality? Edited July 20, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/19/mcguinty-useless-on-gun-crimeYes McDalton because banning handguns would have stopped that shooting Monday. interesting in that McGuinty's response seem quite tempered... measured: Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty : "I think we need to take a pause and ask ourselves what more we might do," Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said during a news conference in Ottawa. "I don't pretend to have any quick and easy answer for you, and I don't know anybody who does." If anyone wants to own a hang gun in Canada they have to jump through hoops to get it registered and they have to carry it around in a locked box. Didn't David Miller ban hand guns in Toronto? did that stop people using illegal hand guns to shoot other people? Why must people react to shootings like this and immediately try to criminalize legal gun owners to score political points? Such a ban would do nothing to stop the type of shootings we've seen in Toronto lately. If they want to do something maybe they should clamp down on the border and prevent people from running guns on Indian reserves. But those solutions aren't PCs, it's much better to go after law-abiding gun owners. This guy finds new ways to piss me off all the time. why do you have handgun(s)? For what purpose? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 interesting in that McGuinty's response seem quite tempered... measured: why do you have handgun(s)? For what purpose? There are two obvious reasons, Waldo. One is that if you are a criminal a gun is a useful tool. The other is that if you are a citizen in fear of attack by a criminal, a gun is a useful tool. I have stated the obvious before, that it is impossible for police to protect you from attack. They can only react afterwards. It is a lottery game where if you win you lose, big time! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
MiddleClassCentrist Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 There are two obvious reasons, Waldo. One is that if you are a criminal a gun is a useful tool. The other is that if you are a citizen in fear of attack by a criminal, a gun is a useful tool. Not under Canadian law... You get charged with murder for shooting a criminal who wasn't actively trying to shoot you. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
MiddleClassCentrist Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 all gangs should be considered "terrorists" Yep. That's exactly what they are and need to be treated as such. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Wild Bill Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 Not under Canadian law... You get charged with murder for shooting a criminal who wasn't actively trying to shoot you. 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. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Guest Derek L Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 There are two obvious reasons, Waldo. One is that if you are a criminal a gun is a useful tool. The other is that if you are a citizen in fear of attack by a criminal, a gun is a useful tool. I have stated the obvious before, that it is impossible for police to protect you from attack. They can only react afterwards. It is a lottery game where if you win you lose, big time! The second reason is clearly illegal Bill, we legal owners use them for sport shooting. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 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. All the reason why Canada needs it’s own Castle Doctrine and Property Rights guaranteed under our Constitution.........No more Charter escape clauses’ ………If the Government wishes to dick around the citizens, the citizens should be at least entitled to the possibility of compensation. Quote
waldo Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 why do you have handgun(s)? For what purpose?There are two obvious reasons, Waldo. I'd much prefer the MIA thread originator to answer the question. Surely he didn't create this thread just to have another go at McGuinty... surely MLW member, 'Boges' actually has handgun(s) to support his raised concern for his stated, 'law abiding gun owners'... notwithstanding the actual 'tempered... measured' McGuinty quote response I offered. So what does he use his handgun(s) for? Presumably the imagined loss of some use(s) has the, presumably, 'law abiding handgun owning' thread originator so incensed... Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 I'd much prefer the MIA thread originator to answer the question. Surely he didn't create this thread just to have another go at McGuinty... surely MLW member, 'Boges' actually has handgun(s) to support his raised concern for his stated, 'law abiding gun owners'... notwithstanding the actual 'tempered... measured' McGuinty quote response I offered. So what does he use his handgun(s) for? Presumably the imagined loss of some use(s) has the, presumably, 'law abiding handgun owning' thread originator so incensed... 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... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
wyly Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 If they want to do something maybe they should clamp down on the border and prevent people from running guns on Indian reserves. But those solutions aren't PCs, it's much better to go after law-abiding gun owners. This guy finds new ways to piss me off all the time. well law abiding citizens are the ones who go off on shooting rampages killing innocent bystanders not criminals...the latest toronto shooting was a case of innocents being caught in a crossfire but not being targeted...I was browsing the web looking at a number of infamous slaughters and couldn't help but notice they were committed by law-abiding legal gun owners not criminals... want to end the toronto gang shootings, legalize/control drugs and much of the source of the gang conflicts disappears...to end mass slaughters by deranged "law abiding" owners, restrict the type of gun permitted ban semi-auto weapons and reduce ammo capacity...get really really nasty with illegal ownership and weapon smugglers... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
socialist Posted July 21, 2012 Report Posted July 21, 2012 well law abiding citizens are the ones who go off on shooting rampages killing innocent bystanders not criminals...the latest toronto shooting was a case of innocents being caught in a crossfire but not being targeted...I was browsing the web looking at a number of infamous slaughters and couldn't help but notice they were committed by law-abiding legal gun owners not criminals... want to end the toronto gang shootings, legalize/control drugs and much of the source of the gang conflicts disappears...to end mass slaughters by deranged "law abiding" owners, restrict the type of gun permitted ban semi-auto weapons and reduce ammo capacity...get really really nasty with illegal ownership and weapon smugglers... i agree. legalize ALL drugs and watch crime decrease rapidly. it's the drugs that cause crime. sometimes i think me and you wyly are the only ones here with common sense. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
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.