Gun Registry

[PocketRocket]

Good post, ARGUS.

I agree completely.

[BubberMiley]

I agree too. Law and order isn't necessarily a left-right issue; it's more common sense than anything.

[August1991]

Further to Argus' post:

Two men are in custody, but no charges have been laid by police.

CTV

What is that supposed to mean? The police have the wrong guys? They have no witnesses? The guys won't talk?

"Certainly we have to look at all of these socio-economic issues and considerations but at the end of the day, we're still dealing with a hard-core (group) of young people who are pre-disposed to violence, afraid of nothing and accountable to no one."

----

Canada is a rich country and these guys were driving around in a BMW. How can anyone possibly argue that poverty or "socio-economic issues" are the "root causes"? By that logic, random shootings should be the norm in India and China. In the Left/CBC/NDP scheme of things, if we built more basketball courts or poured more money into "social outreach organizations" (whatever they are), this problem would be solved.

IMO, anyone who shoots a gun in a public place is either a psychopath or just plain stupid. These punks are stupid.

I agree with Argus that punishment has to be swift and severe (and seen to be so) but our judicial system is not designed that way. To understand the problem, read this G & M article: "I Can't Believe It. They Shot Me"

These punks might view getting sent away as a badge of honour, and the whole process as a game.

Also, illegal drugs are related to this problem. It is the profits from selling illegal drugs that make gang membership attractive.

[BubberMiley]

Also, illegal drugs are related to this problem.  It is the profits from selling illegal drugs that make gang membership attractive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. Too many innocent people have died because of criminalization.

[crazymf]

I don't think we have to go much up the chain past individual precinct protocols on how to deal with punks carrying guns illegally. Blow them away and let the family come and pick up the carcasses.

End of story and burden to society for one punk at a time.

Maybe eventually the rest would learn eventually.

[Leafless]

I think the feds know the gun registry serves no real purpose but was created specifically to add another level of federal bureaucracy and control that produces employment, buys liberal votes with 600-800 more employees at an estimated $25-million with Quebec controlling it's own gun registry with unknown expenses all at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

[Guest eureka]

One of the problems with this "Law and Order" approach, is that the new gang and drug has bred a memebership that really does not care much about life and is not unafraid to die.

Certainly drastic measures must be taken but it is the ultimate in stupidity and class complacency to deny the underlying causes of social alienation. Poverty and discrimination are without any question at the roor of most crime of any sort other than the White Collar of greed'

This partly what is wrong with Harper's approach to many problems - that I find despicable since there is no way that he cannot have acces to all the studies and expertise. His "childcare" proposals will do nothing for those who need it and could be helped out of the culture of violence. His sports tax credit will help only the Middle Classes who can afford to have their children in sport programmes.

A real childcare programme and the construction of facilities that should not cost anything for participation would do wonders for socialization of the "underclasses."

[FTA Lawyer]

Further to Argus' post:

Two men are in custody, but no charges have been laid by police.

CTV

What is that supposed to mean? The police have the wrong guys? They have no witnesses? The guys won't talk?

"Certainly we have to look at all of these socio-economic issues and considerations but at the end of the day, we're still dealing with a hard-core (group) of young people who are pre-disposed to violence, afraid of nothing and accountable to no one."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So long as the police have "articulable cause" (more than mere suspicion but less than grounds for arrest) about a person's possible involvement in a crime, they can detain the person for investigation purposes.

After further investigation, the police will either have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person has participated in a crime, at which point they will be charged, or they will not have sufficient grounds and will have to release the person from custody.

For the type of people involved in a 15-person gang shootout in downtown Toronto in mid-day, there is only one way to handle them...severe punishment.

Gun registries are useless, hand-gun bans are useless, social programs are potentially useful to prevent a new crop of gangsters, but at the end of the day, long penetentiary terms are the only way to try to deal with such lawless and fearless individuals.

The problem with those who defend the gun registry and the proposed "new" hand-gun ban is that they really know little about the state of the law as it is (was) in Canada prior to implementing these futile, incredibly wasteful policies.

For example, prior to the implementation of the gun registry in order to own any firearm legally, you needed all of the following:

1. Safety certification course (2 days)

2. A full detailed application for a FAC license, including disclosure of any mental health related incidents;

3. A criminal record check;

4. A face to face interview with the Firearms Officer of your local RCMP detachment;

5. If married or cohabiting, the full informed consent of your partner (in many cases, the signature on the form is not enough, the RCMP actually phone the partner to ask if they have any concerns with the applicant possessing a firearm)

6. Approval from both your local RCMP detachment and Ottawa.

Only at this point could you get an FAC and be licensed to own a firearm. Then, if you actually did buy a gun, you had to store it:

7. Unloaded;

8. In a locked cabinet or safe OR with a trigger lock or other device that prevents the gun from being fired;

9. Separate from any ammunition (which had to be stored in its own locked compartment).

Now, if you wanted to go to the next level of restrictions and attempt to own a hand-gun, you also needed in addition to all of the above:

10. A special permit to possess a restricted weapon (handgun);

11. Proof of membership in the military, a police force, or other occupation that required possession of a handgun, OR certification as a registered gun retailer or collector, OR membership in a registered shooting club / target range.

12. Storage of the handgun unloaded in a locked box, inside of a locked cabinet or safe with a trigger lock or other device that prevents the gun from being fired (that's right, three levels of protection)

13. Storage of the ammunition separate and apart in its own locked compartment.

Further, aside from military, police etc. virtually no one could be legally authorized to carry a handgun. Anyone who had the special permit to possess was required to also go to the local RCMP detachment each and every time they wanted to move their handgun and obtain a permit to convey / transmit the handgun.

These conveyance permits were specified for a period of hours and allowed transmitting of the handgun (unloaded, in its locked case, with trigger lock) from point "A" being your normal storage site to point "B" being the registered shooting club / range to which you were a member...nowhere else.

Legal hand-gun ownership in Canada has been extremely onerous and strict for decades, so much so that the regulations that came into place (well in advance of the long-gun registry) made most individual hand-gun owners give up and sell or simply turn their hand guns over to the RCMP.

This is why the Martin hand-gun ban announcement is totally f-ing preposterous...and this is not an ignorant NRA-type rant...it's reality.

As others have said on this board, we have long had strict tools to fight gun crime, we just don't punish those who break the laws enough. The solution is hardly to put more laws on the books to make shooting people MORE illegal...that is stupid.

The gun registry has been a 100% waste of taxpayer money, and will continue to waste more until it is scrapped. Instead of monitoring those who are already in compliance with a strict legal regulatory regime, why don't we look a little closer at why people with Criminal Code firearm bans are still shooting and killing police officers? Why don't we question why it's near impossible for a law abiding adult citizen to get a handgun to try the sport of target shooting but a 13 year old can buy as many Glock's as he wants off the back of a truck in downtown Toronto?

Lawful and safe gun ownership is hardly the enemy here, and if it makes urbanites feel better to know that hand guns are "banned" and long guns are "registered" while their kids continue to get gunned down in the streets, well, then I guess all hope is truly lost...

FTA Lawyer

[shoop]

By cracking down on the illegal guns coming in from the U.S. and more strictly enforcing the laws on the books the Conservatives will take action to reverse the tide in the U.S.

The Libeals have proposed nothing to deal with the increasing levels of violence in Canadian big cities in the last 12 years. Their plan to ban handguns is totally off point. It wouldn't have helped prevent the tragedy on Boxing Day.

Really quite sad that a young girl had to suffer such a needless death.

One of the problems with this "Law and Order" approach, is that the new gang and drug has bred a memebership that really does not care much about life and is not unafraid to die.

Certainly drastic measures must be taken but it is the ultimate in stupidity and class complacency to deny the underlying causes of social alienation. Poverty and discrimination are without any question at the roor of most crime of any sort other than the White Collar of greed'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

FTA!

I am sure that all the good, law abiding citizens who were also conscientious abided by all the conditions except when they forgot.

I am sure also that there are a good many law abiding citizens who are not so conscientious.

I am equally sure that there are many not so law abiding citizens who could legally acquire guns. They would also use their legal weapons when the law finally got in the way of whatever occupation they followed.

Legal guns are used in crime. They are also, often stolen when the owners do not observe all the commandments. Then, it is too late to punish the legal owners.

[BHS]

If we did not have the Gun Registry and other controls in Canada, just maybe we would be more like New York where there have been 1450 public shooting incidents this year. Twent times the Toronto total!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Violence has much more to do with culture than availability of firearms. The shootings in the US are because of their huge slums full of minorities, an underclass with no hope, full of rage and drugs and gangs.

In Canada, firearms violence has increased since the long gun registry was introduced, so you can hardly credit it with doing anything useful. Nor was it ever intended to do anything useful except serve as a political placebo to get votes. And most street violence is because of ethnic gangs, whose culture is more akin to that in the slums of New York than to mainstream Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 1450 figure got me curious. I'm wondering where it comes from. I looked up the NYPD's year-to-date stats that indicate 508 homicides but don't indicate how they were perpetrated. In fact, they don't appear to keep statistics particular to gun crime.

[Guest eureka]

The 1450 figure can be found in the Toronto Star as I said. I also said gun related incidents not homicides. And that is where the comparison comes to twenty times the Toronto number.

The number of homicides in Toronto is not greatly different than in previous years: 27% higher than the average of the last five and less than that given the increasing rate of population. It is just that there are more gang and gun related homicides.

The total number of homicides is actually still significantly lower than a decade ago.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA!

I am sure that all the good, law abiding citizens who were also conscientious abided by all the conditions except when they forgot.

I am sure also that there are a good many law abiding citizens who are not so conscientious.

I am equally sure that there are many not so law abiding citizens who could legally acquire guns. They would also use their legal weapons when the law finally got in the way of whatever occupation they followed.

Legal guns are used in crime. They are also, often stolen when the owners do not observe all the commandments. Then, it is too late to punish the legal owners.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eureka!

Well, the point is, if you are law-abiding, conscientious, and know that you will be punished for not following the law, then you don't "forget".

Your suggestion that "not so law abiding citizens" could legally acquire guns and then use them [illegally] can only be true if the existing legislation is not being properly applied and enforced.

This suggests a better screeing process, more police, harsher punishments for offenders etc. NOT punishing the law-abiding conscientious people (which is all that can be accomplished by more laws / red tape, or even outright bans).

And your statement that it is too late to punish an owner of a legal firearm after it is stolen is exactly the mentality that is putting us in such a predicament. If your gun is stolen because you "forgot" to follow the laws on safe storage, then this is a criminal offence, punishable for up to two years in jail for a first offence, and up to five years for a subsequent offence:

Criminal Code

PART III FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS

Use Offences

Careless use of firearm, etc.

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Contravention of storage regulations, etc.

(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

Punishment

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or

( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 86; 1991, c. 40, s. 3; 1995, c. 39, s. 139.

I have never heard of a person in Alberta being sent to jail for unlawful storage of a firearm, and I venture to say it is rare nationwide.

Once again, the problem is failure to enforce already existing laws. We need to strictly enforce the incredibly restrictive gun ownership laws that we already have and hammer offenders with the harshest punishments we have available before we start saying we need new laws...how would we know? We've barely test-driven the ones we have.

For interest sake, take note if charges are laid in the recent death of the girl in T.O. whether or not there will be any charges for firearms-specific offences. There is a huge likelihood that murder / attempt murder or manslaughter charges will be laid without a single charge for unsafe use of a firearm, unlawful possession / storage, carrying a concealed firearm etc., even though convictions could likely come from any one of such charges and consecutive jail sentences added on top of anything else the offender might get.

FTA

P.S., do you have any stats or any form of substance on which to base your assertions that legal guns are used in crime and "often stolen" from legal owners who don't follow the law?

[Argus]

For interest sake, take note if charges are laid in the recent death of the girl in T.O. whether or not there will be any charges for firearms-specific offences.  There is a huge likelihood that murder / attempt murder or manslaughter charges will be laid without a single charge for unsafe use of a firearm, unlawful possession / storage, carrying a concealed firearm etc., even though convictions could likely come from any one of such charges and consecutive jail sentences added on top of anything else the offender might get.

Why consecutive? Every time I see multiple charges the sentences run concurrently.

[FTA Lawyer]

For interest sake, take note if charges are laid in the recent death of the girl in T.O. whether or not there will be any charges for firearms-specific offences.  There is a huge likelihood that murder / attempt murder or manslaughter charges will be laid without a single charge for unsafe use of a firearm, unlawful possession / storage, carrying a concealed firearm etc., even though convictions could likely come from any one of such charges and consecutive jail sentences added on top of anything else the offender might get.

Why consecutive? Every time I see multiple charges the sentences run concurrently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sentencing judges have considerable discretion in making sentences concurrent or consecutive, and you are right that most often they are made to run concurrent.

The "totality principle" dictates that a judge must ensure when sentencing on multiple counts that the overall sentence is not unfairly long.

Ironically, it can be better (from a law and order / reduce recidivism point of view) to have concurrent sentences since subsequent convictions will lead to sentences that are jumped up from the previous one for the same type of offence.

That is, if a break enter and theft and a resist arrest conviction, in the circumstances, is worth a total of 12 months jail, and the judge goes 6 months for the b & e and 6 months consecutive for the resist arrest, then on the next conviction for resist arrest the offender might get 10 months.

If the judge chooses to go 12 months concurrent on both offences, then the next resist arrest conviction wold likely bring 18 months.

Aside from these permutations, there are specific directions in some of the firearm offences of the Criminal Code that jail sentences for those offences must be made concurrent to any other sentences given (or currently being served by the offender). So, if these provisions were used more often, then offenders could be more commonly given longer jail sentences.

FTA

[Guest eureka]

FTA!

I have no stats: just the knowledge that it happens and has been reported on a number of occasions. It does not have to be a situation of a legal owner not following regulations, either.

In one instance only: , recently a collection was stolen from a gun collector in Cobourg. That put 43 once legal guns into the hands of criminals.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA!

I have no stats: just the knowledge that it happens and has been reported on a number of occasions. It does not have to be a situation of a legal owner not following regulations, either.

In one instance only: , recently a collection was stolen from a gun collector in Cobourg. That put 43 once legal guns into the hands of criminals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And so the true question is, did the registry prevent this? No. Could a registry ever prevent this? No. Would a gun ban make it so that these criminals would not be able to illegally get guns? No. (keeping in mind that stealing them from a collector is illegal...not unlike buying them from a smuggler).

So, I maintain my support to scrap the registry and divert the billions of dollars elsewhere (and no, not to the Liberal Party of Canada).

FTA

[Argus]

Why consecutive? Every time I see multiple charges the sentences run concurrently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sentencing judges have considerable discretion in making sentences concurrent or consecutive, and you are right that most often they are made to run concurrent.

The "totality principle" dictates that a judge must ensure when sentencing on multiple counts that the overall sentence is not unfairly long.

You see, this is what I don't understand. What does that mean? Unfairly long?

If you rob a liquor store you should be punished for robbing the liquor store.

If you rob the liquor store with an illegal firearm, you should be punished for robbing the liquor store, for owning an illegal firearm, and for pointing an illegal firearm, as these are multiple crimes. Why would it be unfair for the person in the first instance to get 2 years and the person in the second instance to get 10 years given the different laws violated? And why should they not in most cases be consecutive? What good is concurrent sentencing? It basically exempts the criminal from punishment for crimes which he deserves to be punished for. I can see not punishing a person twice for the same offence. I.e., it would be unfair to have consecutive sentences for pointing a firearm during a robbery, and also for using a firearm in the commision of an indictable offense. But that is the only kind of sentence which should run concurrently.

Aside from these permutations, there are specific directions in some of the firearm offences of the Criminal Code that jail sentences for those offences must be made concurrent to any other sentences given (or currently being served by the offender).  So, if these provisions were used more often, then offenders could be more commonly given longer jail sentences.

But they are rarely used. As I posted the other day the mere pointing of a firearm can draw 14 years. Yet it NEVER has. Posessing and using firearms illegaly have mandatory minimums, so such charges are usually withdrawn in exchange for pleas to other charges. This is because, in my opinion, there are not nearly enough courts available to try more than a small fraction of criminal suspects, so Crowns are obliged to go for pleas in most cases.

[FTA Lawyer]

Why consecutive? Every time I see multiple charges the sentences run concurrently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sentencing judges have considerable discretion in making sentences concurrent or consecutive, and you are right that most often they are made to run concurrent.

The "totality principle" dictates that a judge must ensure when sentencing on multiple counts that the overall sentence is not unfairly long.

You see, this is what I don't understand. What does that mean? Unfairly long?

If you rob a liquor store you should be punished for robbing the liquor store.

If you rob the liquor store with an illegal firearm, you should be punished for robbing the liquor store, for owning an illegal firearm, and for pointing an illegal firearm, as these are multiple crimes. Why would it be unfair for the person in the first instance to get 2 years and the person in the second instance to get 10 years given the different laws violated? And why should they not in most cases be consecutive? What good is concurrent sentencing? It basically exempts the criminal from punishment for crimes which he deserves to be punished for. I can see not punishing a person twice for the same offence. I.e., it would be unfair to have consecutive sentences for pointing a firearm during a robbery, and also for using a firearm in the commision of an indictable offense. But that is the only kind of sentence which should run concurrently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus,

The problem is that available sentences in the Criminal Code are extremely broad. Very few crimes have minimum sentences, so a theft of say a $1500 ring could be punished by anything from probation to 2 years in jail. So, often the appropriate sentence is an artwork rather than a science experiment. And, in fashioning the appropriate sentence, it matters if the person is being punished in other ways for their conduct...either by more jail for another offence, or loss of their job, or payment of huge restitution etc.

Also, if we believe that jail sentences have any deterrent effect at all, and we have any belief that punishments can be rehabilitative (which for all but the most heinous or habitual of criminals, we must believe) then we need to give an offender the opportunity to be rehabilitated before we lock 'em up and throw away the key.

This is a 200+ year old principle of the common law known as the "Coke principle". A recent client of mine who was growing dope and was caught with the grow op and the fruits of it was nailed for growing and possession for the purpose of trafficking (two separate crimes that don't fit the "punishment for the same crime" scenario you mentioned...FYI known as the "Keinapple principle").

As a first offender, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the growing was 14 months, and for the poss. for purpose was 12 months in jail.

To sentence this offender to 26 months (i.e. consecutively) would be grossly out of proportion to the overall circumstances. Indeed, the 12 months was likely bumped up due to the other offence (that is, without the growing, the poss. for the purpose sentence may have been much lower and vice versa)

The theory of the Coke principle is that before someone should get a greater punishment for additional bad activity, they ought to have done the previous punishment to have had the opportunity to benefit from it. If they then commit a further crime, they haven't learned their lesson, so they should then get the increased punishment.

Posessing and using firearms illegaly have mandatory minimums, so such charges are usually withdrawn in exchange for pleas to other charges. This is because, in my opinion, there are not nearly enough courts available to try more than a small fraction of criminal suspects, so Crowns are obliged to go for pleas in most cases.

There is some truth to this, but, what many people do not understand is that only approximately 12% of criminal cases are ever set for trial, and only about 8% actually run a trial (stats loosely sourced from information given orally to the criminal bar in Calgary from the Associate Chief Judge of the Provincial Court).

These numbers are due primarily to offenders wanting to plead guilty as opposed to massive wheelin' and dealin' by the Crown's office.

To bring this all back to the topic of this post, the money from the gun registry would have been much better spent on courthouses, judges and prosecutors to increase our system's ability to handle actual criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners.

FTA

[Slim MacSquinty]

Quote:

One of the problems with this "Law and Order" approach, is that the new gang and drug has bred a memebership that really does not care much about life and is not unafraid to die.

Certainly drastic measures must be taken but it is the ultimate in stupidity and class complacency to deny the underlying causes of social alienation. Poverty and discrimination are without any question at the roor of most crime of any sort other than the White Collar of greed'

What are you a Judge?

The individual presently under arrest in relation to the boxing day shooting in Toronto was on probation after serving 30 days for robbery, has a lengthly disclosable criminal record (at the age of 20) many involving guns and has had numerous serious charges dropped in pleas in the last 12 months.

How many f**king chances does this guy deserve, lets talk about how he is a victim. I think we should start finding sentencing judges culpable when their early release offenders do more damage.

[Guest eureka]

So Slim, is that supposed to be an argument against doing something about the causes of criminal activity?

[Awake Canadian]

The fix;

1. Caught with handgun = 5 years in jail. No parole. No early release. Applies to anyone over 16 years of age.

2. Fire a handgun in public = 10 years in jail. No parole. No early release.

I believe the immediate issue is not whether you possess a stolen gun that was owned legally, or if you possess an illegal gun. The issue is you are carrying a concealed handgun, in public. Lets worry about arguing over the right to legal ownership down the road, lets worry about possession NOW. In Canada, if you are carrying a hangun in public we have zero tolerance and there is NO flexibility.

I believe the only tool available to the public, in a time frame that is reasonable, is minimum sentences. Rock solid minimum sentences.

Awake Canadian

[Argus]

The problem is that available sentences in the Criminal Code are extremely broad.  Very few crimes have minimum sentences, so a theft of say a $1500 ring could be punished by anything from probation to 2 years in jail.  So, often the appropriate sentence is an artwork rather than a science experiment.  And, in fashioning the appropriate sentence, it matters if the person is being punished in other ways for their conduct...either by more jail for another offence, or loss of their job, or payment of huge restitution etc.

Also, if we believe that jail sentences have any deterrent effect at all, and we have any belief that punishments can be rehabilitative (which for all but the most heinous or habitual of criminals, we must believe) then we need to give an offender the opportunity to be rehabilitated before we lock 'em up and throw away the key.

All of which is understandable, but it seems to me that the courts carry this to extremes. The man being held in Toronto for the Boxing Day shootings, for example, was convicted last year for assault. He was then convicted for robbing a convenience store and served just 30 days for that. Had the original sentences been anything like severe - or even reasonable he never would have been on the street to be shooting at people. Another case, in Montreal caught my attention yesterday. A man who was sentenced to 19 years for importing and distributing cocaine in 2003 is to be released on parole after serving just 1/6th his sentence. Do you really think this is fair and reasonable?

To bring this all back to the topic of this post, the money from the gun registry would have been much better spent on courthouses, judges and prosecutors to increase our system's ability to handle actual criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners.

I think we need to build more courts and more prisons, and we need to start prosecuting those who use violence against the innocent to the fullest extent of the law. And that means no parole except in special circumstances, and harsh sentences for those who use firearms and harm others.

[rbacon]

The Liberal philosophy is not working that should be evident to even the most left wing citizen. Let a life sentence mean exactly that you will stay in jail for murder until you die. Forget the legal illegal gun, if any weapon is used in the commission of any crime you will recieve 10 years in jail just for having a weapon. And no plea bargains allowed. The crime is extra jail time. If you are an immigrant committing any crime you will be deported immediately, no Charter rights allowed. If you return you will get 10 years in jail and be deported again, if you return again you will get 20 years in jail. Take all the funds from the phony gun control laws and put it into prison's and law enforcement. Dismantle all taxpayer funded housing complexes except for those who are disabled or infirm or of old age. No more breeding grounds for crime like in Toronto. Scrap the bi-lingual program and use the funds wasted there to lock up these criminals for ever. Some 700B taxdollars have been wasted on bi-lingualism and the result has been a unilingual separatist province. Face the truth and start cutting useless programs and use the scarce taxdollars to deal with the necessities. If this is allowed to continue Toronto will look like downtown Detroit within 10 years a rusted out battlezone.

[justcrowing]

The Liberal philosophy is not working that should be evident to even the most left wing citizen. Let a life sentence mean exactly that you will stay in jail for murder until you die. Forget the legal illegal gun, if any weapon is used in the commission of any crime you will recieve 10 years in jail just for having a weapon. And no plea bargains allowed. The crime is extra jail time. If you are an immigrant committing any crime you will be deported immediately, no Charter rights allowed. If you return you will get 10 years in jail and be deported again, if you return again you will get 20 years in jail. Take all the funds from the phony gun control laws and put it into prison's and law enforcement. Dismantle all taxpayer funded housing complexes except for those who are disabled or infirm or of old age. No more breeding grounds for crime like in Toronto. Scrap the bi-lingual program and use the funds wasted there to lock up these criminals for ever. Some 700B taxdollars have been wasted on bi-lingualism and the result has been a unilingual separatist province. Face the truth and start cutting useless programs and use the scarce taxdollars to deal with the necessities. If this is allowed to continue Toronto will look like downtown Detroit within 10 years a rusted out battlezone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes a whole lot of sense but be careful you will be accused of living or reverting to the "dark ages". Anyone killing a police officer is supposed to receive the death penalty but officers have been killed and the killers are let free after doing minimal time.

I have personally been a victim of an assault in an attempted robbery. Sure the guy was arrested and the next morning the judge let him out on bail only to re-offend that same day. The offender was a known criminal who had a record. In my case he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, attempted robbery; injury causing bodily harm; plus a couple more I cannot remember as it was 6 yrs. ago. While waiting for his trial, it was considered time served - man pled guilty and was out on the street the next day. The RCMP arrived at our house to advise us that this person had been set free. About a week later, the Victims Services contacted us to see how this impacted our lives and I told them that I feared our legal system more than I did the criminal who received no punishment nor treatment for his drug addiction. I also told them that I prayed the Judge and legislators would be attacked in a similar manner and only then they would know what it feels like to be victimized and attacked. Of course, that is not what they wanted to hear as that is so politically incorrect. Too bad!!