http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...tter-1.3903024
Printable View
What a grand Proboscis he is......
This sums up that this knuckle head is not playing with a full deck...lol
My restricted guns are registered therefore are not part of the problem... :)
Tory blames the spike in gun violence on the fact that there are more illegal firearms on the streets. Some 50 per cent of those guns are smuggled across the U.S. border, Tory said, while the other 50 per cent are domestic firearms making their way into criminal hands.
Tory needs to worry about running a city; not how many guns I have. I really isn't any of his business, either as head of a government or as a private citizen. I have the proper license to own firearms and that is all he needs to concern himself about.
I would like to know how he is getting his "facts".
Might suggest that Tory should worry about the things the things he actually has control over and could do something about.
Like TPS and smuggling or gang crime. Maybe they aren't doing a good enough job preventing smuggled guns....or getting gang bangers off the streets.........If its not enough man power, maybe City Hall isn't doing a good enough job budgeting, etc, though to be honest with their budget and the amount of money spent of TPS....
As always, it's always easier to blame everything and everyone else first.
Don't worry. Based on his track record by this time tomorrow he will have changed his opinion on this topic. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Up in smoke.....Cheech and Chong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Wait for it. How long before Wynne jumps in and pressures Trudough ( who owes her big time) to get going on new gun controls. My guess those extra murders this year are mostly a certain "demographic". But it's always easier to kick the law abiding licensed gun owners. How many people die every year in a Toronto as a result of alcohol? Be it liver cancer, drunk driving accidents etc. My guess is far more than are killed by registered firearms. Clearly the solution is to ban and remove all alcohol which is what they want to do with firearms. Do you think they would ever do that? Give your head a shake. So, is it really about saving human lives? No. It never is.
Here is some more information about guns, city stats and some of the unsolved homicides.
https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homi...rrentcases.php
http://maps.torontopolice.on.ca/
I would like to know how close the stats are between gun deaths and knives. If I go too Toronto with a pocket knife in my pocket how long before he wants to register it ? Tory tried to shaft the citizens of the Kawartha Lakes but we saw through him, unfortunately the residents of Toronto didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxx
Year to Date Homicides 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent Change Absolute Change Stabbing 14 15 18 8 -55.6% -10 Shooting 22 27 26 39 50.0% 13
https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/stat.../ytd_stats.php
It's hard to know what that dumb fkcu is saying. Obviously,he's parroting Mark Saunders and toeing the Liberal line which isn't difficult to understand seeing as how he's lobbying both Wynne for road tolls and Trudeau for federal funding for transit at the same time. I would dearly love to see a comprehensive break down of how many and where those so-called "domestic" firearms are being allegedly stolen. From what I can see,99% of firearms used in street crime are sourced from the US through FN reserves that straddle the border where there's little to no enforcement against smuggling everything from tobacco to drugs to stolen firearms. Handguns in private hands in Canada are registered to their owners,so,wouldn't it necessarily follow that Police would know instantly where the stolen guns came from? If that's not the case,then,a handgun registry is useless,right? Well,isn't it?
don't be bringing in common sense into this.......Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Here's another article about this:
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...egulation.html
I'm with everyone and that I don't agree with politicians being involved in gun control but I don't see the problem with police organizations having access to certain information that might put up a red flag like that U of T student who purchased 23 handguns in 22 months and was selling them to the black market. That's crazy.
yes that seems crazy but obtaining an RPAL is completely controlled by the police and every purchase is registered wether bought new or privately from another owner. At what point do we start questioning the quality of police work here?Quote:
Originally Posted by ryandir
As I said.
It's always easier to blame everything else rather than look internally.
If theres been a spike in gang related shootings or street crime.
If more guns are being smuggled into the city.
Of coarse its easier to go crawling to the feds begging for more gun controls, than it is to ask hard questions of the TPS who get millions to combat "guns and gangs" and apparently things are getting worse??????
It also looks better in the press, as it gives the appearance of "doing something" and distracts away from the public looking at the city.
I'm pretty sure if those stats looked at the last 20 years and were weighted for population growth (e.g. homicides per capita), they would tell a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
Exactly. Plus what a academic dumbazz to have an RPAL and strawman purchase handguns for resale to criminals with his name still attached to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
And what an outstanding job the restricted registry did in preventing THIS handgun crime..........
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I actually read about this in the GTA section of today,s Toronto Star but put up this link as info.But from the Star article we have the following " Last month, the STAR revealed how four different men in the GTA used their valid firearms license to each purchase numerous handguns and diverted them to the black market. LOL (strange choice of words for the STAR).
They included a University of Toronto student who bought 23 handguns during a 22 month period, including 15 from one store. All were convicted and sent to prison for firearms trafficking.
A Toronto police briefing note prepared for city staff warned that serious "gaps" have turned domestic firearms trafficking into a "very real problem in Canada" and put some of the blame on the RCMP, the agency that administers the Canadian Firearms Program me.
In a draft copy of Tory,s letter to Goodale obtained by the STAR ,Tory writes he finds it troubling that "certain licensed gun owners are able to amass small arsenals of handguns and that there are no red flags despite these purchases being on the Canadian Firearms Registry.
" I was shocked to learn that there is no limit on the number of firearms any one licensed gun owner can purchase and possess", the letter states. This "obvious gap" needs to be addressed, as legally purchased Canadian guns are turning up in criminal investigations with greater frequency, Tory writes.
The letter also adds that Tory has learned criminals are also arming themselves with domestically sold LONG GUNS, including rifles and shotguns.
The Coalition for Gun Control blames relaxed licensing and legislation under the Tories for eroding strict controls that previously limited access to certain firearms.In the past five years, the number of handguns owned by Canadians jumped 50%, climbing to 795,854 from just under 532,000 in 2011. (someone failed maths)
The federal Liberals promised during last year,s election campaign to strengthen some of the country,s gun laws.
I get where he's coming from to some degree....The 50% he's talking about is if i have a bunch of guns (restricted and non) and someone finds out and they decide to break into my house and take them and they end up in the street illegally and in a crime.
It happens, i had a buddy who had a bunch of guns, he was a responsible hunter an active range member. But some criminal who probably has a range membership found out and his place was broken into. Nothing was stolen except his entire safe that had the guns in it. Not his laptop he had on his table, none of his fishing gear. These people knew what they wanted and came prepared. They did it while he was at work too so they probably even monitored his habits.
They will most likely end up in a crime in the GTA.
Blanket rules aren't the answer though, those criminals will always find a way...
Why would crooks be arming themselves with rifles and shotguns? They're the most useless firearms for criminal use there is unless the LONG guns he's referring to are prohibs. Somebody needs to sit the boy down and school him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Metro Toronto has grown by 300,000 in the years 2011 to 2015 ( no stats for 2016 yet) from 5.8mm to 6.1mm. So roughly 5%.
I got that from stats can, trust no real need for the link.I was looking at something earlier this year, which looked at the number of shooting incidents and trips to the ER ( not just deaths/homicides). They to were showing a spike this year, personally don't question it.
Do question the "causes" and um the amount of resources being poured into it and why if it's so alarming. Tory isn't instead making sure he's getting value for his money.
https://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/engl...and_gangs.html
IGGT
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/gunandgang/
OCE
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/organizedcrime/
Cant suck and blow at the same time.
Aka sound alarms bells about the number of guns, shootings, murders and completely ignore why all that money apparently isn't doing much good.
Funny that eh Trimmer.
RPALs and registry, differences between just your average gun owner and collectors, blah blah blah.
Smoke and mirrors imo, he wants to cry about it and thats fine, theres been a fairly big spike. Hard to ring alarm bells without looking at.........
unless of coarse theres a handy "scape goat" to draw attention away from.....
Any chance of showing where any more than 10 guns u need a collectors/dealers license ? If that's a fact, there's a lot of criminals out there....Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdog
I've read it someplace either in The Firearms Act or Criminal Code which I can't remember right off hand,but,it wasn't that long ago. I'll try to find it.
Another article on it.
To be fair, the focus is more on the failings of LEO than on Johny Q gun Owner.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3135360/rc...toronto-mayor/
This segment is interesting.
Bryce McDonald, a Courtenay, B.C. man, registered 49 restricted firearms, mostly handguns[COLOR=#111111], between 2009 and his arrest in 2013. McDonald bought several identical or nearly identical handguns, including 10 Glock semi-automatic pistols, three of which he bought on the same day.[COLOR=#111111]McDonald was approved for a restricted firearms licence, which allowed him to buy as many handguns as he liked, despite a criminal conviction for uttering threats and a major head injury which meant that he had no memories from before the age of 19.
READ: RCMP concerned after dozens of guns stolen from central Alberta home
Police raided McDonald’s house after homicide investigators traced a gun abandoned in a bag in Surrey, B.C. back to him. They found only seven of the dozens of restricted guns that were supposed to be in his possession.
******
So heres a person who arguably should not have been able to acquire or keep an RPAL, and given technology today that yes, should have raised questions......
So in this case it's the failing of leo, not Johnny Q. Which begs the question, where's the "problem".
Also noticed he wasn't charged with weapons trafficking.......
Hmmm
Kind a like a soft on crime, revolving door justice system.
OOOPS!! I think I misread The Firearms Act Sec.102 regarding Inspections of firearms collections,so,I amended the above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdog
Tory should be questioning the new "carding" law poised to take effect. Police will no longer be able to stop and check suspicious individuals. The gangbangers already know they can begin carrying their weapons without being hassled by the cops. It will only get worse!
Yup work on tougher gun laws but leave that revolving door judicial system just the way it is.
Tony
I was just listening to AM 1010 (by accident, I was setting up a new radio and heard firearms and stopped), the firearm supporter was doing OK but according to the idiot announcer and some of the call ins:
1) announcer has no interest in ever shooting a firearm, thinks should be a limit to how many and police should be allowed to come into a gun owners house anytime because guns kill people.
Translation based on what I heard: idiot, no respect for firearm owners, likes a police state
2) Call ins: Same as above but analogy to cars brought up again ....
Translation based on what I heard: idiots, no clue on ownership, seems they can't figure out owning a car without a license isn't illegal, driving one on the road without a license is. Ignorant or ignoring the fact handguns are the majority of the problem and they require a special license, authorization to transport and have been registered since 1934.... intolerant of differing views I would say too.
At this point I finished setting up the radio (without 1010) but based on what I heard they are fine with a police state where search warrants are not required for legal firearm owners and when they can't blame firearms it will be knives, then bats and we will all live happily in a world made up of pillows and stuffed animals eating tofu
From the police, no doubt, but when facts make their way into a politician's hands they always end up being misused. The number of homicides is not a function of the number of guns -- and we don't even really know the number of guns out there. The rate of shootings has been up the past two years, and police admit that this is cyclical and they don't fully understand why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Instead of talking about whether more gang guns are being sourced domestically, we should be talking about the things that actually matter: why gangs turn to domestic sources, and whether the overall supply of guns to gangs is falling.
Gangs are turning to domestic sources because enforcement of smuggling is becoming more effective. It is getting riskier and more expensive to smuggle guns, so the market reacts. A greater proportion of guns is sourced domestically ... which means enforcement is working!
But what is the overall supply? Contrary to claims made by some, the supply of illegal guns is poor enough and the street cost high enough that some gangbangers end up sharing them or renting them. This is a measure of success. You won't hear politicians talking about that, though.
But blanket rules do have the effect of choking off sources of supply. The existence of a handgun registry in Canada and the system of licensing make it very risky to convert handguns to the black market, as demonstrated by recent arrests. The effect was to make criminals turn to smuggling, at greater risk and expense. Now, border enforcement is making them look for guns at home. The cost and difficulty of a gangbanger getting a gun rises.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpriteMcBain
This has a visible effect. Petty criminals are priced out of the gun market. In Canada, the rate of guns used in robbery is about 12%; in the US; on the order of 43%. The difference is how cheaply and easily a bottom-feeding crook -- armed robbery is a high risk, low reward, bottom feeding crime -- can get a handgun.
When criminals turned to smuggling, it was a sign the system was working. That they're turning back tells us border enforcement is working. We enjoy a low murder rate, a low overall rate of violence, and a low rate of gun crime. But politicians are about politics.
And we come full circle, or if not full circle back to....
"Tory blames the spike in gun violence on the fact that there are more illegal firearms on the streets."
"In September, Canada's Commissioner of Firearms reported that the sale of restricted firearms — like semi-automatic rifles and handguns — shot up 9.5 per cent in 2015, and that since 2004 the number of those guns has doubled across the country."
And more than once reference to Harper and "easing" is cited.
******
The number of homicides is not a function of the number of guns.
Tend to agree with that, personally think other factors such as socio economic play far larger roles. However, anytime many here in Canada be they journalist, be they politicians, be they "left" leaning Antis, look at the US. Whats cited?
Their gun culture and the number of guns.
Anytime theres a mass shooting, it's the number of ARs.....
And everyone thinks they should be banned or curtailed, there and here.
****
As always, I don't have issues with GC (present or potential future).
Let actually identify the problem and then bring in things that make sense if needed.
I hope your not worrying to much about this when the fact that since CPIC came into existence in 1972 the RCMP are still backlogged in recording criminal convictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
That,s right folks from the day I started to the end of my career the RCMP was never up to date on criminal records in Canada.
Even as late as two weeks ago we hear about a East Indian rapist,being allowed bail and fleeing to Indian before his sentencing.
The reason his record did not show his previous rape conviction as it was not recorded on his criminal record.
Local police forces are still sending paper copies of criminal convictions to the RCMP and they are still behind. In fact they will be behind until 2018.
Just think of the thousands on criminals who got bail and are getting bail because the RCMP cannot get their in order.
I have personally processed one career criminal who was a full 8 criminal convictions behind on his record.
I know this may sound off topic but its very important to understanding the revolving door system our criminal justice system has been and continues to be.
Gilroy what you just explained is beyond scary. Basically a back log of paperwork allows dangerous felons out on the streets. In this day of IT that's nuts.
Some of you guys, thought that John Tory was a rational thinking man, when he was the leader of the Pro. Con. Party of Ontario. What happened? LOL.
Actually he was an idiot then and handed McGinty a "gimme" election. Notice he isn't around anymore?
My gawd Gilroy...you certainly have led a life to be proud of.
Good for you for remaining "up to snuff"...a lot of guys have cracked under the pressure of policing.
It is nice to have good people on this forum.
These discussions are enlightening to some of us newbies who don't have guns yet.
He needs Trudeau and Wynne to finance his transit plan,so,he better be a good boy. I have a deep mistrust of "red Tories". Obviously,after McGuinty kicked his a** around the block,he's not as smart as he thought he was and the rest of us agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Just an afterthought. Maybe,we should ask Mayor Tory if he thinks we don't need that many firearms,why he needs so many golf clubs in his bag. I'd love to hear that answer.LOL
The best post I seen on this so far is distraction politics. He is using this story to deflect what he is really doing with toll lanes on DVP. Classic liberal move, create distraction for the people, change the channel, fire up gunnies, fire up the media machine. Once this is done...carry on plan to toll the roads in background.
Classic Liberal ploy
May someone already has and they are paying him to raise the issue because the number of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizenry could be constituting a problem in carrying out their criminal activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
A perfect example of 'Smoke and Mirrors'...a good tool in any politicians repertoire :)Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
Fifty percent seems to be an ambiguous round number for a fact gotten from the police. I mean I have a 50% chance to win Lotto Max on Friday (either I win or I don't) but that isn't the real chance of winning. But as you said, facts have a tendency to be misused by politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
You said the police say the number of shootings is cyclical. However, if domestic sources are the problem, shouldn't the number of shootings increase with the rate of newer domestic sources (our population increases, some of that population starts to own firearms therefore Tory's domestic source problem increases). Furthermore, if the domestic sources are becoming more of a problem, why is this happening? Is this a result of legal firearm owners illegally selling firearms to non-licensed individuals or are the guns being acquired through nefarious methods (theft or coercion for example)? I think it is the latter rather than the former. If so, why is Tory not looking towards his owner police force to recover illegally gained firearms from domestic sources rather than target law abiding citizens? No doubt it is much easier to go after a law-abiding citizen than a criminal as you are completely safe from the citizen.
Dyth
[COLOR=#333333]"certain information that might put up a red flag like that U of T student who purchased 23 handguns in 22 months and was selling them to the black market."
How was this possible? Isn't there paperwork to be completed at both ends before a handgun can legally be transferred?
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
What is needed up there is a 2nd Amendment - then you can protect yourselves - maybe you can borrow Trump once he is done draining the swamp in Washington - he'll straighten things out up there - but you have to make sure that you give him back -
But not entirely implausible. The problem is, these numbers really don't mean much anyway. The proportion of crime guns from domestic sources changes in response to border enforcement and domestic controls, but even if these things remain static it will change year over year based on chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Police may focus on domestic sources -- which may be the case this year, as they've been warning about the growing importance of domestic sources for about three years now. The result is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. A crackdown on anything will find what it is looking for.
Also, there is the question of time to crime, which is too complicated for the front page. A gun recovered today may have entered the black market last week, or it may have entered the black market in 2006. It's difficult to talk about trends without knowing the average time to crime (or time to recovery), and the deviation.
Some of the fluctuations are just statistical noise. Any criminologist will tell you that to compare crime rates year over year and declare a trend exists is bogus, and the same rule applies here.
So while it is probably true that gangs are turning to domestic sources -- the recent spate of straw-buy incidents suggests this is the case -- it is also probably a mistake to try to peg it to a number.
The rate at which guns are used in violence is mostly a function of availability, i.e. of how easily a criminal can get a gun. Assuming availability doesn't change, an uptick in violence is an uptick in shootings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Tory is suggesting that there is an uptick in availability. Police have previously said that Toronto's uptick in shootings seems to be a cyclical thing, rather than an uptick in availability. One suggested explanation is that it relates to the length of sentences and a number of people being released with scores to settle, or disruptions caused by a number of people being released and re-entering the drug market.
Either explanation works, but where is the evidence of greater availability? If smuggling has declined as domestic sources have grown more important, it's conceivable availability has actually fallen. But we don't talk about this because it's very difficult to know.
Likely both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Let's bear in mind that a licensed owner who is deliberately selling to criminals probably got his licence purely for that purpose. Criminals buy their guns through trusted networks. A firearms licence is easy to obtain if you have no criminal record. If I know you have a clean record I may suggest you get a licence to supply me -- or even coerce you into doing so. But if you try to sell a handgun on the street in Toronto tomorrow, off your own bat, you'll be ignored.
Our U of T student, with 23 guns in 22 months? Dollars to donuts he was exchanging them for drugs, to a dealer he'd known for years -- and quite possibly at the dealer's suggestion.
I think we would all rather stick with our figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.
Which begs the questions.
1) Do we even have problems here.
2) If that can be decided and agreed upon, what exactly is the problem
A person might be tempted to think the streets are awash in blood and firearms related murders, the way politicians, activist and sometimes leo carry on.
Even this when you put it into perspective.
For a big city of 6,000,000 (about the size of Chicago) and 36 gun related murders for the year...Most of which can safely be assumed ( I would think) would be related to crime and criminals......
So what ( if any) is the problem "exactly". Maybe once thats determined and maybe once that's isolated measures (if needed) can be introduced. Else all else is just a shotgun approach thats just as likely to do little to address the actual (if any ) problem and cost a small fortune.
If the criminals only killed each other hell we could supply the ammunition, not that different than supplying needles to junkies. Problem is the ahhholes don't understand how to shoot and end up taking out innocent people. And then even when the police round them up the judiciary turns them loose. It's almost like the lawyers are paid commission.........hey wait a minute :scream:
Good point Terry.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Maybe the gov't should quit wasting time and $ on these piddly gun figures and go after the real killers in the community.
Human trafficking.
Child exploitation.
Hard core drugs.
Those are the things that are killing people in this country.....and they all go hand in hand.
Pull up those numbers will ya, please Gilroy.
Let's talk about wth is REALLY going on...cuz it sure isn't guns that are killing society...and it isn't drugs ether.
It's people.
Gov't wants to make our streets safer?
Then they better start sweepin' up the putrid piles of garbage that they are choosing to ignore.
Take every firearm off the streets and we are still left with THE PROBLEM.
....dead and ruined people.
....run with it Jben cuz I'm outa here ;)
NFA Letter to Mayor Tory and Toronto City Council
Mayor Tory and Toronto City Council
12th floor, West Tower, City Hall
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Dear Mayor John Tory and Councillors:
Subject: Firearms Control Statements by Mayor Tory
As the President of a national organization concerned with civil rights and personal freedom, I was both surprised and alarmed to learn that Mayor John Tory would be proposing additional firearms control measures such as limiting firearm purchase quantities by citizens.
On behalf of the many lawful firearms owners, users, and businesses in your fair city, I respectfully request that Toronto City Council retract requests to the federal minister of justice regarding additional intrusion into Canada’s already highly bureaucratic and unnecessary firearms control regime. Despite the emotional attachment mistakenly given to firearms issues, such a change as trying to place a limit on quantities of firearms purchased would only harm innocent citizens who own these items, businesses that sell them, and likely serve only to increase violent crime.
I also request that a representative of our organization meet with council to explain the nuances of Canadian firearms law, and the research cited below.
I note that in the examples given in the media, the people involved were alleged to be engaged in criminal activity and were arrested for their actions. Historically, Canadians have made good use of firearms to feed their families and to enjoy recreational shooting activities that are well known to reduce stress and build personal discipline – they have also used them for personal and general defence. Canadian athletes who shoot have done Canada proud in sporting events both at home and around the world. As a sponsor of several of Canada’s top biathletes, one of our top pistol shooters, and shooting events and teams, we are well aware of the value of excellence in shooting disciplines. At over 70,000 members, Canada’s National Firearms Association is this country’s largest advocacy organization promoting the rights and freedoms of all responsible firearm owners and users. We are also an official United Nations NGO with consultative status to ECOSOC.
In addition, firearms and ammunition are owned by Canadian re-enactors and collectors who appreciate their historical significance and are proud to share that aspect of history. Firearms ownership and use is not, as has been claimed by the ignorant and ill-informed, a “dangerous hobby.” If that were the case, why is it possible that Canada’s National Firearms Association can offer 5 million dollars primary liability insurance for all legal firearms activities for only $9.95 per year? Anyone who has tried to get similar insurance for their car or other activities well understands that insurance companies know what is dangerous and what is not.
Clearly ownership and lawful use of firearms and ammunition is not a dangerous activity. The peer-reviewed research by Dr. Caillin Langmann, PhD, MD as published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence in 2012 (copy attached) conclusively demonstrates that there is no relationship between any of Canada’s firearms laws and violent crime rates in Canada. In addition, research by Professors Gary Mauser and John Lott, Jr., has conclusively demonstrated that having more firearms in the hands of good people has a net effect of reducing crime, especially violent crime.
All available national data show that smuggling is the predominant source of crime guns; not from licenced firearms owners
It has also been demonstrated that in areas where firearms are heavily regulated or banned such as in England that crimes of violence dramatically increase – Joyce Lee Malcolm’s peer-reviewed book Guns and Violence: The English Experience is clear on that matter. This is not fantasy – it is verifiable fact. Academic reference material such as Professor Mauser’s work published in his article “Hubris in the North” and his article “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? – A review of International and some domestic evidence” in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy written with Don B. Kates, and Professor Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime are but a few which demonstrate the accuracy of my comments.
Firearms laws have often been pushed upon Canadians under the guise of public safety when in fact these laws are merely serving to limit civil rights and hard won freedoms. Neither the firearm registration system, nor the licensing programs have ever truly been about saving any lives. These laws have really been about trying to destroy a positive Canadian firearms culture.
Thank you for considering my remarks. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours truly,
Sheldon Clare
President
Canada’s National Firearms Association
Langmann Report
Excellent letter by Sheldon. Let's hope John Tory and Toronto Council actually read it. Because they're so deep into Liberal/leftist dogma,though,I wouldn't hold my breathe. Thanks for posting,Moe.
add in the equation that the statistics jumped when he became mayor after the Ford nationQuote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Dick
Exactly Trimmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Extremely well written letter, Moe!
:)
Tell Tory to go back n read... we turfed Mark Holland, May 2011... yes I was a part of that, were u ? Like they say, hang together or hang separately......
Gee I must of missed the announcement where he switched parties, what one is he in now. Using his own words , not yours. LOL. Just looked up an extensive history of Tory, and he has always been a Pro. Con. his entire political life, and I could find no evidence he has switched parties. Yes he is one of 'yours'.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
All of this is nothing but politics back scratching. Tory has been sucked in by the idiots on Toronto council and is spending what he doesn't have. Wynne is in major trouble so will give Tory anything for his support and Toronto votes. Even Trudough is amassing all kinds of failures and needs something to change the channel although he has 3 more years to borrow money from our children.
Too bad the jerk didn't stay gone. Now,the voters sent him back and you can rest well assured,he'll be pulling strings behind the scenes,but,trying to keep his pathetic a** out of the spotlight.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdog
He switched parties when he won Toronto's mayoralty campaign. His purse strings are controlled by the liberal/left and he knows it,both provincially and federally,so,if he wants any money,he better be a good little Liberal.........or else.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So he is a former Pro. Con. Leader of Ont. who ran numerous time under the P.C. banner who can switch his allegiance at will, but still remain a card carrying member of the P.C. party, how messed, underhanded, backstabbing, is that?
Much as i hate to agree with commiefish Tory has only ever been a member of the PC party. Regardless of who he cozies up to or how sleazy he becomes he has not to my knowledge switched party affiliations. If asked i am fairly certain he would still say he is PC. Unfortunately that will reflect on the PC party whether we like/agree with it or not.
What is needed up here JoePa, is a little less meek submission.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
"I was further shocked to learn that there is no limit on the number of firearms any one licensed gun owner can purchase and possess."These guns, while acquired legally, are increasingly turning up in criminal investigations, according to the Tory...
So let's apply the same logic to political donations. I think it would run like this:
The greater the donation, the larger the likelihood that a portion of it came from crime. And the more donations, the greater the likelihood that some of them came from the proceeds of crime. Therefore, let's severely restrict the number and size of political donations.
No S.8472 more like Democratic Socialist fisher.
VICE has written an article about it, including CCFR's take on the situation.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/t...se-gun-control
Quite! I wouldn't trust a "Red" Tory anymore than I'd trust a lyin' liberal. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I bet you have voted for him.
I did and I promise it will NEVER happen,again.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So good old Ralphie boy is pulling a page out of the Ontario Liberal play book by blaming Harper for "weakening" our gun laws. I seem to recall no specific legislation which weakened our gun laws. Can anyone else?
Nope! He did no such thing. Mr. Goodale is flat out WRONG,but,like any other good Liberal,will never let facts get in the way of idealogy and dogma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
I have to wonder if Tory would have brought up the gun issue, if he had won the election and been elected Premier of Ontario? Hmmmm.
Perhaps Goodale doesn't realize that everything needs to be blamed on Mike Harris and then it is "the truth". Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Bill C-42. Depending how you define "weaken."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Hmmm. Yea, having first time license applicants have to participate in classroom safety courses seems to be a weaker version of what it was before. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
That wasn't the whole content of Bill C-42.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
There's also the whole long gun registry thing ... abolishing the registry unquestionably removed a control. Whether that had any effect is a separate question.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Oh I know. I was just picking something out. Didn't the current PM agree the abolishment of the registry was a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I think he has made a remark to the effect that the registry was a mistake.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Canadians electing that self entitled son of a Cuban dictator was a bigger mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Remarks like this do not serve the gun lobby or gun owners or hunters very well.
If you are going to knock people or voters in a personal way you hurt your cause.
WHEN THEY GO LOW WE GO HIGH.
I stand by my words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Just so I understand this.
Only a few still argue or try to argue that the registry was anything but a wasteful mistake.Fewer still try to make cases that it did any good, let alone good that outweighed the harm.
So Im just curious how something, no matter what "it" is, if it adds zero, once its removed results in something that was weaker ( or less) than what went before.
Only fuzzy anti gun math or political math can do that. How does removing a redundant, non effective, wasteful, harmful layer of security (lets call it a firewall) make the existing framework/firewall/fortress behind it any weaker. Or since when, does +1 ( Our effective gun controls) + 0 (the registry) Inplain English it did no good, added zero and even they now admit was a huge mistake.......- 0 ( the registry) result in anything less than 1. The claim being thrown about by them, and think?? the rcmp?? (to sure on this) and the Pro GC crowd is that Harper weakened Gun Controls.
Have to laugh.
on one hand they admit it was a colossal waste and mistake that did nothing and are afraid to broach the subject anymore.
on the other hand they "blame" Harper for weakening gun controls
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Talking as a former LEO the removal of the gun registry from a law enforcement point of view presents more difficulties.For example:
The job becomes more dangerous as their is no prior notification long guns are in a dwelling where a call for service has taken place. Yes I know we would take precautions in any call but a heads up about firearms is always better.
Now lets say we are at a domestic call and one of the two parties has access to a long gun, unless its declared by one of the parties it would not be seized and could be used later on.
Or how about I locate a bunch of long guns on a bad guy, no registry, so the lawful owner no longer gets them returned.
Or how about a person convicted and the officer is ordered by the courts to seize all firearms in the accused possession, well now pretty much impossible.
I could go on and on about this but my position is well known and that is why most all police services across the country and their union,s wanted the long gun registry to stay.
My last point is one I have made on here for years. When gun owners did register long guns they looked like moderate people who were willing to compromise and I always thought this made us look good.
Now that the registry is gone, guess what still no peace, the anti gun lobby will keep on and find new ways. So now they are highlighting "straw purchasers" and using this as a call for action.
This thinking caused 2 LEO's to be killed in Alberta. The registry said the fella had no gun's to young Cops went in shot and killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I think those are called straw men Gilroy.
I don't know a single officer who when responding to a domestic isn't prepared for the worst, for example. And if when later on one of the parties is still blowing gaskets, well many things that come to hand be they baseball bats or knives get the job done to. The one and only (imo) factor that counts/matters is that more people survive when its not a gun.
heres one thats not straw man. LEO have used the registry to break into law abiding citizens homes, stomp all over their rights and confiscate them...Let alone all the law abiding citizens that have gone bankrupt fighting often trumped up charges.
At the end of the day there is nothing, jack squat that shows it was anything but a colossal waste. Further, not two pages ago was the post that copied the letter to Tory and in it, were studies (peer reviewed) that show it did nothing....................
And at he end of the day.
Our homicide rate per capita is 0.5.
Do we even have a problem
?
If I've asked it and said it once I've said it dozens of times. No issues with GC and anyone that wants to argue GC...Well just look south. I don't want to live in a country where the per capita rate is off the charts. Now its not quite that simple because despite our similarities, we have large differences to. Starting with healthcare, education, poverty and more....Which also play roles and we are more "conscious" about that to.......
Show me an actual problem, lets identify an actual problem.
Show me an actual weakness in our system ( I quite agree with JTs move to beef up efforts on the borders for example.) Thats a real problem and a measure that should address that actual, real problem.
Show me "measures" that address actual weaknesses, or an identified problem.
Then lets talk
When LEO entered a home with illegal non registered guns did the registry make them safer? There is still a PAL system in place that can alert police that a person is licensed to own restricted or non restricted firearms at an address. The registry never saved lives and was just a make work program that swelled the payroll and sucked money from actual law enforcement. Harassing law abiding gun owners does not reduce gun crimes. Harassing illegal gun toting criminals does. Wasting limited and mostly borrowed money on inneffective smoke and mirrors feel good initiatives actually helps criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Could have been that or it could have been they were just young Cops who were not with a good experienced training officer. I was not there and you were not there so how do you know this was a contributory cause?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Well JBEN I can only tell you the long gun registry was invaluable to me and those I worked with for some of the reasons I cited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
If you had your life on the line and the registry made your life some what safer would you not want to keep it. Is more information about potential threats to an officer of value, I think it is bearing in mind I come at this topic from that frame of mind.
As well Gilroy and as you yourself are well aware of and the Liberals willingly admitted. The original intention of the registry was to eventually confiscate firearms.
And I have personal friends still working in law enforcement that disagree. The registry was so messed up it wasn't even dependable. At one point they sent me a registration card 3 times for a gun I had sold and registered/transfered to the new owner. How many others like this were out there?
Gilroy, there is nothing, read that again, nothing that shows it made you or johny Q, or battered Susie Q
any safer.
I as well Terry. Most of the cops I know likewise thought it was a waste.
Curious Gilroy as we both walked the same streets at night. How did the registry make you any safer in RP?
Of course "good" information is valuable. The registry was never about making your job safer. Your training and having as many boots on the ground did that. An army of poorly trained government paper pushers in Miramichi was only about retaining Maritime liberal seats. The money wasted on the registry meant less money for your training and less officers. Why do you think they didn't locate it in Fort McMurray or Swift Current Sask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
In no way did it make your life safer.
If it did tell us how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
This is just clipped and not to be taken as gospel despite being peer reviewed. However, for the most part it's more than what is usually trotted out by the pro registry crowd.
ARIMA analysis also failed tofind gradual permanent effects that might have occurred after 1998 with thereplacement of the FAC by the PAL/POL and the implementation of the long-gun registry (firearm homicide: ARIMA[1,1,0] 86.21% increase, B = 0.27,p = .94; long gun: ARIMA[1,1,0] 77.61% reduction, B = –0.65, p = .60).
To adjust for the effects of previous legislation on subsequent legislation, amodel combining all legislation was produced (Figure 2, SupplementaryFigures B and C). A trend of increasing firearms homicide was noted post C-68(year 1998: Btrend = +0.06, p = .05, % change = +14.8%) but no significant stepeffects were discovered suggesting the step noted in 1998 is not significant.Late effects of C-68 coming into effect in 2001, such as the PAL/POL, was also
2314 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(12)
[IMG]file:///page12image1032[/IMG] tested with this model, and no statistically significant effects of the legislationwere noted (year 2001: Bstep = –0.06, p = .70, Btrend = 0.079, p = .07).
Spousal homicide by firearm was also examined using interrupted regres-sion and ARIMA. No associations were found after C-17 was passed and upto 4 years afterward (Figure 2; Table 2; Spousal Firearm Homicide:ARIMA[0,1,1] 2.1% reduction, B = –.009, p = .75). C-68 also produced noassociation either immediately after passage or after the implementation ofthe PAL/POL (2001) or long-gun registry (2003; Figure 2; Table 2; SpousalFirearm Homicide: ARIMA[0,1,1], 1996, 0.9% reduction, B = –0.004, p =.89; 2001, 2.5% reduction, B = –0.01, p = .72; 2003, 2.8% increase, B = 0.01,p = .69; spousal long-gun homicide, ARIMA[2,1,0], 1996, 1.1% reduction,B = –0.005, p = .82; 2003, 1.9% increase, B = 0.01, p = .74). "
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Well not in RP because nobody would have qualified for a PAL or at least nobody I knew.LOL
The registry did make me feel safer but of course I used the normal precautions as well. I like the idea the long gun owners are held somewhat responsible for where there guns are at any given time.
The waste only came after it was dismantled.
Lmao lol, :)
Funny I had reason to think of the old haunts the other day, which reminded of a certain case involving a certain mechanical room. :(
Time flies and we still haven't gone for the beer.
Re the registry or GC.
I honestly have no issues with GC, nor future as yet un named measures. All I ask is that "lets identify actual problems", and/or "actual weaknesses" and then find measures that make sense, ( without too much argument) that address that problem, or weakness.
Shotgun approaches rarely work with anything in life, they usually miss the "actual" target. But they sure do make the politicians appear to be doing something.
That,s an easy one, I get a call to a domestic and already know there are guns registered to the home.First question to the complainant where are the guns? They get secured first.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
If its important to register handguns, I ask you why is it not important to register long guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Can,t disagree with that thinking.
P.S. I need to get you up to the camp its about time you actually shot a deer.LOL
LMAO again :)
Been a couple years now of uncooperative weather and snakebites.
This year I have a huge and I do mean huge bodied 10 pointer that was at 30 yards giving me nightmares, was waltzing right into my lane when the little puke of a spike in front of him froze for some inexplicable reason. It wasn't the wind, and given I hadn't moved or made a sound, just no reason for it. I could have taken the spiker with eyes closed. 20 yards in my lane standing still as a statue for a good 2 minutes, never once looked at me. I don't know anyone that would have played it differently and in hindsight once turned and started walking back towards the brute I should have put meat in the freezer but there was still a chance they'd take the trail to my left lane.
/sigh
Do you head up in winter? Im right on your way if Im not mistaken.
Tory is a jellyfish.
You were no less in danger if the registry told you there were firearms in the house. The registry only accounted for firearms which were in it's system; not unregistered ones or illegal ones. It is a false safety which you were extremely fortuneate didn't blow up in your face. Long gun owners are responsible for their guns because of the storage restrictions in the firearms act, not because of a registry. You used normal precautions because you knew the registry wasn't a complete picture of what potential firearms are in the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
You get a call to a domestic and you should already prepare for firearms to be in the house (whether the owners have a firearms license or not or if the registry says there is one there or not). First questions to the complaints should be are there any firearms in the house and if so, are they secure and may I see your firearms license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Handguns aren't the only firearms which need to be registered with the government. Any restricted and prohibited firearms are required to be registered with the government because it has been determined by parliament that a higher level of operator care must be used and enforced when using those firearms coupled with the insane requirement that a special authorization to transport is necessary for the gun itself. Long guns have been determined to be the group of firearms which require the least supervision and enforcement and so aren't required to have any more special government "oversight".
As a police officer for the number of years which you claim to be and a hunter, I fail to understand how you are so misinformed about the firearm laws in this country.
The LGR wasn't around when I was in law enforcement,but,we had the FAC system that served us very well,although,we country coppers always assumed firearms were present because every farm,cottage or home in the rural areas had at least one. It was just a "given". Mostly,we knew who the "players" were as soon as we were given the complainant names/addresses,but,sometimes there were people that we'd never dealt with. Dispatchers were very good at getting information to us regarding subjects who were "refused" or "revoked",so,we knew what we could possibly be dealing with and governed ourselves accordingly. Colleagues later told me they largely ignored the LGR because it was just superfluous information they didn't need. Knowing who was and who was NOT licensed was all they needed to know.
Gilroy having a gun in the registry did that tell you where it was located at that very moment in time?if not it was even more usless. Looking to see if a person had a PAL would give you all the information you need. You know that the person likely owns a gun.
Yeh a couple of times I might go up and snow shoe in to check the place.Not much deer around in the winter they generally have yarded up south.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I kinda liked the guy and thought he was doing a good job,but these tolls have me lost.The property taxes out my way are higher than Toronto and most other area,s surrounding the GTA are much higher, he would have to increase property taxes by at least 10 to 15% just to keep even with some areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
I cant have been so badly trained as I was one of the first Provincially appointed Firearms Officers in Ontario and was also the firearms officer who gave lectures to the troops. I think after having the 1300 page firearms legislation on my desk for 5 years I might know a few things.
Shoot me a note if/when you do. Places to meet for pops or coffee if not here.
Well not quite accurate in my experience.A gun registered in the long gun registry could be at a persons residence or his home or elsewhere.But if you at least know what arms they own you can go about seizing them if needed by a Judges order for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Presently the officers will have no idea if a guy has one long rifle or fifty.Having a PAL does not mean you own guns.I have approved
applicants for PAL,s that needed them for work like armed security.They do not own the guns and are not allowed to take them home.
I have also approved PAL,s for students from the UOT who needed the PAL,s to handle shotguns while in field surveys in the far north.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
That would be great.
You mean you want me to open my locked storage and let you walk out of the place with my firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Not happening!
Just the way I like it....period. What I do and what I have as a legal law abiding citizen is none of their business....[QUOTE=Gilroy;1007448]
Presently the officers will have no idea if a guy has one long rifle or fifty.QUOTE]
People get promoted all the time who don't know what the hell they are doing. That isn't an argument you should use to try to defend the appearance of how little you understand the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
All the usual registry arguments get trotted out, on schedule. It's not clear why we would be debating the registry, as it's a dead issue. The feds are not going to reinstate it and other than Quebec, no province has so much as hinted that they would create a provincial registry.
On registries in general, what's never mentioned in these threads is that registries have one obvious and indisputable benefit: in conjunction with licensing, they provide a strong control over transfers into the black market. That is, if I can only sell to a licensed person and if each sale has to be registered, then it becomes very risky for me to sell to unlicensed people. On the other hand, in the absence of a registry, I can sell to anyone with no fear that the sale will be traced back to me.
As I said earlier, the risk is less that law-abiding gun owners will sell to criminals than that people can obtain licences for the purpose of straw buying. The handgun registry has closed this door, and this is why gangs have had to turn to smuggling.
The thing about the long gun registry is, at the time of its creation there was no reasonable argument that this control over black market transfers was necessary for long guns. There was no real reason to think that transfers of long guns into the black market presented a significant concern. The irony of it is, though, that since the expiry of the Clinton AWB, the long gun market has changed significantly, and that argument can now be made ... which leaves a future government determined to register semi-autos, but faced with the reality that the LGR is a dead duck, with one obvious alternative: restrict them.
I was never promoted, to much of a sh-- disturber.But I think after locking up bad guys for 36 years I might know a little about the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
What I also think is that you might not know how little police officers are trained in this aspect of the law and firearms generally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Very good post and compliments my OP where we now see the evolution continue, legit license holders buying for bad guys.......
I definitely do not think Ralph Goodale or Justin Trudeau would even think about the long gun registry being re instated, politically way to costly. What might happen in the future is that Cities affected by criminal gun violence might start looking at ordinances
which probably would have been a better way to go in the past.
Gilroy - you are missing a very important point - what is more important - a cop's safety or the freedom and liberty of the citizens - if a cop can only do his job by taking away freedom then I suggest he get a different job -
Well Joe some would argue that the COPS in America are not doing their jobs, so the citizens have armed themselves to the teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Where are the Americans freedoms when they feel compelled to have carry concealed , when there is a gun for almost every citizen. That my friend is not freedom its the opposite.You poor people down there have been so brainwashed by your Government you don,t know which way is up. If the Police were able to protect you there would be no need to stand your ground or Castle laws.
When you have thousands of people murdered in your country every years and tens of thousands killed by firearms you got no freedom.
Actually Joe I will gladly give up a level of freedom if it increased cop safety but there are better ways of doing that than an ineffective registry eating up scarce funds. Having to carry a firearm for protection isn't my idea of liberty at all.
City ordinances should never be regarded as a "band-aid" solution to curb hand gun violence. Both Chicago and Baltimore have hand gun bans in place and they're the murder capitols of America. Anyone contemplating using municipal by-laws to control guns need look no further than those two cities as a glaring example of stupidity at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Well Welsh, while I could be wrong, it was you that first brought "trotted out " the registry in responce to Dyth as an example of weakened GC. Should be careful with the "as usual". Which is neither here nor there but is cause and effect. You can't blame people when you opened pandora Box. :)
Did the registry curtail the black market? Good question.
Seems to me, gangs had no trouble acquiring firearms.
before (biker wars)
during (Malvern Scarborough gangs of the 90s/2000s) or RP as I'm sure Gilroy can attest. As he said, it did nothing to keep him any safer in Regent Park where they have no trouble getting guns. There are lots of them. As common as cell phones. Despite all the controls over hand guns...
after (today's blood washed streets)
but it I guess all that might really be needed to call that unproven (?) hypothesis into question is
handguns are still registered, today and..........
some are making all kinds of noise about the number of handguns being used in crime.
so much for that school of thought, because the simple logical fact of the matter is.
Its not having much effect stopping the flow.
Is it?
I mean seriously. We have Tory and others including the RCMP ringing alarm bells. Then want to claim that a registry works?
lol.
/PS
hope the smiley is noticed.
My idea was that ordinances would have been a better approach than the long gun registry because the gun violence has really been a city problem.The registry just upset a whole lot of rural Canadians.I think the COPS in Toronto and PWE guys are doing a pretty good job of getting guns off the street but it clearly is not enough.I have no problem with gang bangers wiping themselves out its the collateral damage that is the biggest problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
What they are really calling for is confiscation.
Exactly!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
How did you guys come to this conclusion from what was posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Well, JBen, my "as usual" refers not to the fact the registry is under discussion, which might well be my fault, but to the fact that not one new or original argument is being advanced. That's surely nothing to do with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Whatever it may seem to you, black market prices in Canada vs. the US are well documented and they reflect the effect on supply. I have also pointed out on several occasions the evidence that petty thugs in Canada have been priced out of the handgun market.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
It's to be expected that gangs will still be able to get guns. The point is, it is more difficult and expensive, which is why we see shared guns and rental guns. The evidence suggests more gang members than guns to arm them. This has a positive effect on public safety: the petty thugs who direct their violence against the public are priced out of the market, which is left to gang members who chiefly carry for self-defence against their criminal associates.
The easiest source to find on this is an investigative series by the Star from a couple of years ago. There are also exhaustive recent studies of the effect of regulation on the handgun market in Chicago. Rates of firearms use in robbery are available from StatsCan and the FBI UCR website. Regarding motivations of gang members to carry guns, I suggest reading Wright & Rossi.
Which blood-washed streets? Toronto is one of our safest cities. Your chances of being shot in Toronto are minuscule.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
It has had a demonstrable effect on availability and price. I've posted the evidence of this before, but I will again: black market price of Hi-Point pistol in the US, $100 - 150; in Toronto, $1500. Rate of firearms use in robbery, US, ~43%; Canada, 12-13%. Gang members use rental guns and shared guns. They very frequently have the wrong ammunition or a very limited supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
The market has reacted to domestic regulation by turning to smuggled guns, and then reacted to smuggling by using straw buyers (quite possibly coerced) and targeted burglaries. This is a steady pattern in which the market relies on increasingly risky sources. Both straw buys and burglaries are significantly riskier than smuggling given our open border. This should be telling you something.
Incidentally, another example of the effect of registries is found in the United States, where the National Firearms Act had a clear effect on the availability of machine guns to criminals. Its two most significant features were a hefty tax on machine guns, and a registry. Transfers of machine guns from the legitimate, regulated market into the black market are very near zero.
I'm not really interested in "seems to me" arguments. The facts are out there. But as I already pointed out, the point is moot because the registry is a dead duck.
Municipalities, however, have very little power to pass bylaws regarding guns, as this is a federally regulated area and the Municipalities Act sharply limits the powers of cities to interfere in provincially or federally regulated matters. The federal government would have to pass a law giving cities powers to regulate guns -- which is why the NDP has several times proposed doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
But it remains unclear exactly what measures might be taken. Straw buyers might be better controlled by giving the CFC the formal mandate and funding to look for patterns of frequent or regular purchases (23 handguns in 22 months) for local police to follow up. Targeted thefts are a much thornier problem. No matter how much you beef up your safe, someone's going to get into it. And beefier safes introduce a new risk: it's easier for me to force my way into your home and make you open your own safe with a gun to your kid's head than it is to wait for you to go out and then break the safe. Then we're increasing the direct risk to people.
I'm not sure what cities could do in either regard. A more practical approach at this point might be to stop worrying about the supply side, and work on reducing the black market demand -- a suggestion that's recently been echoed by Bill Blair, of all people. For greater clarity, that means stop bringing in new gun control and instead focus on the drug market, which is where the money to buy the guns and the need to carry them comes from.
Not hard it was well known long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Gilroy as someone who has been on the streets is it your impression that inner city violence is worse or is the manner of the news agencies reporting the violence sensationalize the issue? And you are 100% correct in that this Rural feels infringed upon when the inner city problems affect my rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Welsh,
and yet we have authorities clamouring about the number of restricted weapons ending up in the hands of criminals. We have Tory whining about a student who bought 23? Handguns,....that guy in ALTA who bought 40? Hmmmm isn't that exactly what.......
you and I both know using the U.S. as any kind of barometer here is useless. Way too many variables, way too many other factors. It's comparing apples to oranges. Just hint at something and they buy all available stock as one example. Scales of economy play into it as well I'm sure.
You yourself said, there's seems to be some idea that the number of guns relates to the number of homicides. So the argument that a registry does any good...., or is an effective measure....not sure how that can be supported. Not when, obviously it's had little to no effect. You've also argued (and I agree) that one reason for an uptick in domestic theft is the crack down on smuggling. So once again, it's not having any effect....they've just gotten them other ways.....is the registry stopping them from stealing them??? Stopping them from being smuggled in?
There's also those studies by Langford that show no change...........
By almost anyone's definition that's a waste and ineffective. Especially when you consider that today some are up in arms about the number of arms (registered ones) turning up in criminals hands. An effective measure would have quantifiable results. Could be easily demonstrated to have curbed the flow, shown up in stats. What good is bringing in some "car safety" measure if it does nothing to reduce the carnage.
Oh, and for the record I was kind of indifferent about the registry. They could bring it back tomorrow. I wouldn't like it, I'd argue against it as a collosal appear to be something measure. But life really would go on largely unchanged...
I'm still not convinced that registration of handguns actually accomplishes a whole he** of a lot other than setting up a huge useless bureaucracy. Restricting supply only fuels a black market in smuggling,but,restricting smuggling only forces that same black market to target licensed firearm owners,six of one,half a dozen of the other. I firmly believe that restrictive licensing will be the be all and end all solution that makes reasonable sense being economical and sustainable in the long run. having said that,though,I also believe that once a firearm owner has jumped through all the hoops,he/she should be able to use that firearm for whatever purpose they need whether it's to the range anywhere and anytime,to carry in the bush or to take it in for maintenance unfettered by silly "big brother is watching" permission to transport regs. Register the owner making them responsible for whatever happens,not the inanimate object that can sit loaded on a table and never hurt anything until some dummy messes with it.
An example I thought of. Not sure how much it weighs.
If petty thugs and small time criminals have been priced out of the market and can no longer get them. Well, where's the quantifiable drop in shootings/homicides? Shouldn't there be fewer people getting shot during muggings, a drop in violent crime ( that's attributable to fewer petty thugs having guns). Or is it a wash? They are killing fewer people, but because they are defenseless when they cross the wrong dealer and get shot....so a net wash ( +1 citizen not shot, -1 petty thug) to the stats :)
now, not saying that petty criminals are still getting them just easily. Something more along the lines of if they are barely a blip in the statistics to begin with, and typically don't murder people when stealing their purses............perhaps they like legal gun owners aren't the problem? And are a bit of a red herring?
Wanted to come back to this for a moment, see if I can clarify and Welsh, do hope what's said isn't misinterpreted due to the failings of the written word.
Earlier I said "Torontos blood washed streets" and you said "What blood washed streets, TOs one of the safest..".
Yep it is, my comment was not quite sarcasm, but close. A few times in this thread and in others Ive asked the question. Do we even have a problem, lets identify that first, then lets find measure that address that specific problem. Hence the "sarcastic" TOs blood washed streets.........One might think if we listen to Tory and some others, the streets are running red.
You said "not interested in seems to me arguments"
My opinion doesn't count?
This isn't about whose right, it's about "what's right". Be that as it may, that to was sarcasm. Because it's not "seems", it's reality. In the past year Tory has been in the press a couple times sounding off about A) the number of shootings this year and B) The number of guns in gangs hands, and we all know the concern there isn't long guns, it's handguns. Restricted, registered guns.
The RCMP have as well.
In fact in the past 10-15 years entire Police units have been created to try and combat the problem. One of which is getting millions, tens of millions to stem the problem and is called the Gangs and Guns unit......"Seems to me gangs have no problems acquiring guns" isn't anecdotal. It is fact, it is reality.
"It has had a demonstrable effect on availability and price. I've posted the evidence of this before, but I will again: black market price of Hi-Point pistol in the US, $100 - 150; in Toronto, $1500. Rate of firearms use in robbery, US, ~43%; Canada, 12-13%."
Im pretty sure one reason a handgun in the US might sell for $100 on the street in the US and $1,500 here is. The sheer number of guns in the US (and other reasons that have squat to do with registries). Another is the retail price. I'm no gun nut, so I could be wrong, but aren't guns in the US considerably cheaper over the counter to begin with?
And Im pretty sure one reason guns are used in robberies far more in the US. Might be, well the odds of the intended victim being armed are much higher. You know what they say about bringing knives to gun fights.
It might also be higher due to the sheer number of guns in the US. The country is armed to the teeth.It could also be due to the odds of someone trying to a rob a liquor store get shot either by the proprietor (gun behind the counter) or by LEO as they try to get away.........It's not as if the country doesn't also have race problems and cops executing petty thieves and even people laying on the ground with their hands in the air.
How that proves that registry reduced the flow of guns into the black market here, well Im not sure. All that stuff proves is that there are certainly more guns in the US, and while looking at the US is useful, it can't be held against life here or any other industrialized western country. Statistically its an outrider, dirty bathwater. Useless
Now the thing I wanted to clarify, emphasize. Me as both a gun owner and a citizen.
I'm interested in
Results!
Results that will or can be shown to reduce the number of people getting shot, or killed by guns.
Isn't that the overriding preeminent purpose of Gun Control. Isn't that what politicians like Tory, or JT or RCMP say all the time.That Gun controls sole purpose is to keep and make Canadians safer.......So if a measure is or will do nothing towards that..........
I have nothing against GC, do not classify myself as a person thats against GC.
What I am against is GC thats forced on law abiding gun owners that doesn't produce results, doesn't in fact make Canadians any safer.
The blatant use of handguns and the birth of street gangs go hand in hand.In the public housing projects where I worked fully the first 16 years of my career coming up against any type of firearms was pretty unusual . Gangs in Toronto got going in a big way with the arrival of crack cocaine in 1988, prior to that there were just loose associations of criminals,especially the crack dealers who were almost all Jamaican background.Where things blew up in Toronto is when the police service took the beat COPS out of the projects.Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
The local criminals who had been held in check by local COPS who knew them, were free to run the projects.This was done for budgetary reasons by pen pushers at HQ. We now have a whole generation of COPS who have never worked on the beat, don,t know how to talk with people,don,t know how to cultivate informants, generally do not know what they are doing.They were never given training officers/mentors who brought them along slowly.
So inner city violence with the use of firearms is way up from when I started and of course the number of gangs and their ethnic make up is also way up, Somalian,Ethiopian,Russian...Technology both helps and hinders the police.Police officers are afraid to do investigative stops or don,t know how to do them.You can BS criminals if you know how to and obtain the information you need.
There was no possibility in the old days of walking around public housing projects with a gun in your waistband without getting pinched pretty quickly.The local COPS knew a new face right away, we were sneaky and watched people from empty apartments with binoculars and we had our informants, Oh we could also run pretty fast after them.
Some very good posts here. I think what is clear is that as gun owners we mostly all welcome gun control. I happen to think the PAL/RPAL system is a good start. Not perfect but being a National database is quite useful for LEO. Our safe storage laws are stringent which isn't a bad thing either. Not fool proof but nothing is. I find it interesting that a Toronto bureaucrat like Blair states additional rules won't help. Encouraging actually. The problem isn't guns it's those who use them For crime. Not that it's ever going to be possible but even if you were able to remove all guns the gangs would just transition to knives. They are criminals and a gun is just a tool. The other problem is that the left who at this point rule Canada are very anti gun and would/will confiscate them all if they could pull it off. Not saying I would want to live in a country like the US where soccer moms shoot at each other in Walmart parking lots but legal gun owners up here tend to be far more stable. The registry is not dead. The database wasn't completely destroyed, I don't believe that for s second. The RCMP do whatever they want and always have. Who would take them to task? The army?
i think John Tory is about to impose tolls, tax increases and is just looking to deflect and change the channel. Legal gun owners are just low hanging fruit to a politician especially in large cities like Toronto.
Community Policing Gilroy ;)
If you had to put your thumb on a period or era, even though you have, where things really started to "blow up". Would that not be the gangs that started emerging out of Malvern? I want to say around 1990?
Terry, like Welsh I think the registry is dead. Is it "possible" in 10 years time someone other than JT will try again? Sure it is.
But as much as we "gripe" about the left or rather the very pro GC crowd, we can see signs that both the Politicians and LEO are instead finally starting to key in on "actual" problems, rather than some of the usual shot gun approaches. They are trying to crack down on smuggling, they are going after the gangs.
If New York city can get it done, so can Toronto.
As welsh just said above of all people Blair............
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Yeh all the original gangs derive from Jamaica as the Jamaican posse,s migrated up the eastern seaboard bringing crack with them.
Everybody was from the same neighborhoods or parishes in Jamaica, Trenchtown,Trivoli Gardens,Spangler. The second generation Canadian born just took their names from where they lived,but still had the old home family connections.We can thank the Jamaican political system and gunmen who work for both opposition parties.We can also thank the interference of both the CIA and KGB who supported different sides in Jamaica in the old days.They were the ones who organised the original political gangs that developed into criminal posse,s, the top boss always insulated.Street runners carrying rocks of crack,lieutenants bringing in the 8 balls,and then the top guys.That is why Alister COOKE managed to stay on top of the drug empire in Jamaica for several decades with the assistance of his own Government and other outside agencies. But yeh 1990 would be as good a starting point.
John Tory ( the subject of this thread ) is doing exactly the opposite of what you just said though. He isn't saying he wants to reinvent policing and bring back community based patrols. He is attacking licensed/legal owners. If Wynne thought she could benefit she would jump on too. She may yet as it plays to here base also. None of this has to do with crime prevention. It's all about hanging on to political jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Billy Blair and I worked in Regent Park as beat COPS for a number of years.His old partner was Kim Derry. Both these guys were very good street officers and both went onto 5 District drugs.These guys went up through the ranks Hold Up Sqaud, Intelligence,Fraud..
Billy was very well educated and he does understand what goes on in the street.Never in Toronto,s history have they had a Chief who was so well rounded.He was was ambitious and probably a lot more political than I ever imagined, but he is not stupid.He will be a very helpful and steadying influence on Ralph Goodale and this man is also not stupid. The secret for the gun lobby is to make sure we have our representative at each and every meeting they might have with the Gun Control Coalition.
John Tory is also doing the exact opposite of what he said on road tolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
A Star writer two Sundays ago wrote a column on property taxes.Toronto is one of the lowest property tax rates in the GTA ,Oakville,Pickering,Oshawa all far higher.So instead of telling the truth and saying he should put up Toronto taxes he is messing with drivers.I agree they all want to hang onto their jobs.But in the next election this will not happen.
I have "mixed" thoughts on Blair. Sort of knew his record as a street cop was good....Then he entered politics. Will just say my opinion of him nose dived following the G20. He put his political career ahead of both the people and his own guys by throwing one or two under the bus.
Kim Derry. Not sure why but that name rings a bell. I knew the some of the guys at 55 sort of (lol). It sometimes surprises me when I think about some of my old haunts during the late 70s and early 80s. Was a time when spent the evening in one of the cockroach infested units, then wander through RP well after sunset, and into the wee hours. Can honestly say I never felt threatened or accosted. Fast forward some years when I was spending time around the Jungle ( the project south of Yorkdale Mall), I want to say late 80s, maybe the early 90s. This would have been around the time Cops were started to wear vest. Some did/some didn't. Not a single cop would pursue anyone into the jungle at least not without back up.
This is the elephant in the room. Toronto have the highest level of infrastructure and services and pay disproportionately less taxes than most. No politician has the balls to go down that road though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
R. I bought my own second chance vest back in 1977, so I might have been ahead of the curve.The reasons why other divisions had problems in their projects is that the troops either were not sent in or would not go in.The only back up I had was my partner and Smith and Wesson, but plenty of days I walked in RP solo, spent most of my day in and around the Root Burger and Belshaw Place.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Stuff in Toronto is rapidly coming off the rails (no pun intended). Their budgetary requirements for transit,highway maintenance (Gardener Exp) and other infrastructure is almost completely unattainable even with federal and provincial funding unless City council raises Toronto's mill rate to be on par with the rest of Ontario. If I moved my home and property into Toronto from Clarington,it's market value would be well in excess of $1M. My taxes out here are $4400 per year. In Toronto,they'd be under $3K. Something is ridiculously wrong with that picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I agree, but how come Tory can get on a soap box and say he CANNOT or WILL NOT put up property taxes. If this MPAC creation was working properly and they were not allowed to set the mill rate so low things would be much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Its very insulting to ask a motorist travelling from say Burlington who is paying throw the nose property taxes a fee just to get to work downtown.How about taxing the crap out of the cyclists.how about spending less money.
My BIL works for Transportation they got a 10 million dollars increase in budget this year. I had no idea salt had gone up so much?
Apparently they went out and bought a who new fleet of vehicles that are just sitting around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Same here in Mississauga and it has not changed since the 80,s.Toronto always lower and they have all the amenities.Oshawa apparently is pretty high.
Thats kind of what I was alluding to with respect to the Jungle. I'm going back years and to a life I often "forget". In the late 70s early 80s. People, be they guys like me, or beat cops like you could wander around Regent Park at all hours. Yeah there were loose gangs and yeah there was a certain element of danger/risk, but really......Many was the night I could and did venture into and out RP and not once did I have someone wave or point a gun at me.
Fast forward just a handful of years around the time vest were more common, but not everyone wore them,and beat cops had an unwritten rule, not to pursue anyone into the Jungle without backup. Never and not sure if that was just something the guys pounding the pavement decided themselves, or if it was policy (specific to the precinct). Not sure if your familiar with the Jungle, but on the South side of Yorkdale mall is a wall, and yep it was a fortress wall for all intents and purposes. It was "do not pursue anyone past that wall" without back up. If they make into the Jungle let them go.
[COLOR=#333333]' It was "do not pursue anyone past that wall" without back up. If they make into the Jungle let them go.'
Bad policy you can never let the bad guys control or even think they could control an area.I was sent up to Jamestown Cres in Rexdale in 1988, the COPS and Morality had done a dug project and had done a take down the day before.They fu----d everything up,arrested innocent civilians,all because there was no local intelligence.The locals fire bombed the station 23 division.
No wall in RP if you were wanted or seen committing a crime the foot chase was on.Now a lot of the car guys would not enter RP on regular patrol because they were uncomfortable.I basically lived there.lol
It's one thing to say you're interested in results. It's another thing entirely to be open to the evidence of what brings results.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Right now, you're jumping through hoops to argue away the evidence that registries help to control transfers into the black market. This is not a controversial idea. In fact, this is the main purpose of registries. There is ample evidence that the handgun registry in Canada has had that effect.
I shouldn't have to point out basic economic realities here. The black market price of guns is not a function of differences in the number of guns in the US vs. Canada; it's a function of the supply of guns, and the demand for guns. Given the relatively small number of gang members in Canada, demand is not driving that price. Restricted supply is. And the fact that gangs are switching to ever-riskier sources -- from smuggling to straw buying and targeted break-ins -- supports that. The handgun registry, in concert with licensing, is the key component of the system that restricts domestic supply.
I've posted concrete evidence. I've given you a list of sources to read. Against this, no, your unvarnished opinion does not count. The fact that you hold an opinion does not make it true.
Sigh
No, what I'm saying (a few different ways) is that it didn't and hasn't been
effective. IN AND OF ITSELF, and if it were, there would be quantifiable proof and not conjecture or rather opinion...
And perhaps I shouldn't have to point out "basic economic realities" that the retail price of guns in the US is considerably cheaper than the retail price here. So wtf do you expect? Wow what a revelation, Im totally shocked, that black market guns are more expensive here. The price of a car in the US is "15,000 the same car here in Canada would cost $35,000. All your proving is.....
nothing.
Nor should I have to point out, that here in Canada we also have other Gun Control measure not found in all states, that would also account for the some, or all or most of the difference in street price.Gun laws here are the same everywhere, gun laws in the States? So is it possible Welsh that yet another reason for the difference in price are other factors? Would the fact that a legit buyer has to have an RPal here, versus say someone in Texas explain any difference between the street price of a handgun in Texas and the street price of a handgun in Toronto? What about any other differences... .......Now this I really dont know but are the penalities the same there and here? meaning if a trafficker will get 10 years here and 5years there or 20 years there. Would that not also affect the street prices?
Its all because we have a registry here that the street price for a gun in (where exactly?) is $100 and here its $1,500.....
Of coarse no one else's opinion counts except gods.
Tell yah what Welsh.
First show me the controls, you know basic elementary school stuff that normalizes all variables between the two things being compared. You do know why they are important right?
Or simply show us how prior to the registry and then post registry the street price rocketed here, and while were at a measurable drop in street prices for long guns post removal...... At least then its more apples to apples.
Else all you've shown is that the price of a car in the US is a lot cheaper than the price of a car here.
Well "duh", we know that. We all know cars are a lot cheaper in the US than here.
Oh and keep in mind there are peer reviewed studies that do show. Prior to and after the registry
No changes, it did nothing. So even if it did have some marginal impact
Gee I thought because petty criminals were priced out...........
Ultimately whatever minute impact, it didnt make us any safer.
And you can try to avoid this all you like.
Handguns are restricted, and theres a registry. It hasn't changed the fact gangs have no trouble getting them, nor has it had any measurable, quantifiable effect ( at least according to some peer reviewed studies) on the bottom line.
Our safety
And sorry for the edits :) but sometimes....
Welsh, comparing as a direct comparison the US to Canada. Way, way too many variables to (Im not sure what the word is) but I think I said, not "call into question".....If we want to do it on a broad based "GC" works and we can see that in the per capita differences....But its still not quite that simple is it. The race problems alone in the US, education/healthcare, other social issues and values......
If someone want to prove that the registry had a big impact, well its going to take studies, of things here, and only here, in essence in a controlled environment. Would love to see how someone can "normalize" all the various variables. The fact not all states have uniform laws and even penalities is going to.
If a trafficker here gets 10 years and a trafficker in (name some state) X gets 5 years. Well thats going to make a difference in the street price. Wont it?
Wrong. Absent a registry, there is no way to know who sold a gun into the black market. It is the registry that makes transfers to the black market risky, because the firearm is traceable to the last legal seller. This is the reality that cuts off supply. No other measure has a comparable effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
You're trying to argue that the fact the cops can trace the gun to the seller has no effect on the market. I suppose gangs were smuggling for fun, then? Can you suggest which other measures account for most of the deterrent effect?
As expected, you've begun making personal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Evidence trumps opinion. I've provided evidence and pointed you to sources. You respond with a personal attack.
A car that costs $15,000 in the US is not $150,000 here. That's the kind of difference we're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
LOL. No, there are not "peer reviewed studies." There is one, single peer reviewed study, which is based on a fallacious premise. That study is junk science, but more importantly, it did not examine the effect of the handgun registry, because it looked only at measures introduced since 1974.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
For a more detailed explanation of why Caillin Langmann's study is junk science, I refer you to an article by Ted Goertzel in Skeptical Inquirer (use Google); to gain a better understanding of just how complex the variables are, you might read Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature (use the local library). But the point is moot, since the study never looked at the question you say it does.
I applaud your rare attempt to use evidence. Next time, make sure you're familiar with the evidence before you refer to it.
Really.
So your saying that breaking into a collectors house stealing 10-20 guns and selling them into the back market.......Its only the registry that makes it risky.
Your saying that the penalties here if your caught stealing someone those collectors versus say getting caught doing the same in name one of the 52 states and all their different laws.... Its the registry that explains why guns sell for 100 on the street there, vs 1,500 here?
Your also saying the retail prices have nothing to do with it, and its the registry that explains the 100 street price in the US and the 1,500 street here...
Really, you really want to say that "god"?
And at the end of the day.
No quantifiable, measureable peer review studies that show it made Canada any safer.
etc, etc.
Seems to me, what set this off was your superior intellect once again when I said "seems to me gangs still have no trouble getting them" given..........But appaently "Seems" doesnt count and only your opinions do.
The back and forth between you and J just reinforces the notion that there is no easy solutions here.
There are obviously many variables driving the street price. But I am not arguing the registry drives the street price.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I am arguing that the regulatory environment for handguns in Canada, and in particular the existence of a registry, creates the need to smuggle. It is the risks associated with smuggling that drive up the street price.
These are not controversial or difficult ideas. Indeed, this is exactly the rationale gun owners have used for years to explain why handgun bans will be ineffective! And in further delicious irony, I first encountered the idea that gun control is primarily a market measure in an anti-control article by Matt Walsh in the libertarian Reason magazine.
You can argue all you want, but I'm not playing anymore.
Bottom line: handguns are not nearly as available to Canadian criminals as some people imagine. Handgun availability is not really a problem. Bill Blair is probably right, much as it pains me: supply side approaches are not very useful anymore. Further regulation will be unhelpful, and John Tory is fundamentally wrong.
There I go, being the enemy of all gun owners again!
I haven't said that anywhere. You're deliberately misrepresenting my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
This is why I stop playing, JBen.
Right. There are no easy solutions. Unfortunately, politicians are in the business of peddling easy solutions, which is what John Tory is doing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Drugs created the problem, as you well know. If we really want to address the problem, we need to attack the cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Well I do agree drugs are a big part of the story but there is more to this here and in the USA. I don,t want to get all philosophical on here but a lot has to do with power. Seems there are a lot of people out there feeling powerless in society but give them a gun and suddenly they are 6 feet tall.Some of the shootings of perfectly innocent bystanders were gang initiations, you disrespect somebody with the wrong words or even a look your getting shot.I remember back in Britain in the 70,s if you got caught with gun in the commission of a crime you got life in prison.I suspect this has changed now, but sure seemed a good deterrent.
There are certainly other issues in play and I don't want to be reductive in suggesting a single cause. That whole queetion of respect is a cultural problem. But it's the drug trade that created the gang problem and its drug profits that buy the guns. So in terms of where the greatest potential to reduce the problem lies, I think the target is obvious.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Bingo!
At last, somebody addresses the real issue...as much as it pains me to admit it ;)
Handgun owners are a tiny portion of gun owners and a minuscule portion of voters. Politicians get very high electoral returns by attacking them. It's never about safety. It's about catering to special interests and the $support it yields.
Lol you beat me to it Gilroy. If it continued I was going point that out to. :)
The fact that there in no consensus per say. Some peoples opinions (underscore that word) may be that the registry was the greatest thing sinced sliced bread. Other people opinions may be something else...Some people may feel its this or that. As Im fond of saying the world is rarely black or white ( when there consensus, when only a few last people will say yes or no), But no-one else's opinions count. :)
Is said it when it started Welsh. I'm interested in results. Results that show this or that, measurable qunatifiable results that result in a near consensus. Few will argue for example that our storage laws help with suicides (not sure thats the best example, but it suffices for "on the fly").
AFAIK theres really only a couple studies. Hell even leo arent entirely sure of the causes for this and that. So again, all we have are opinions. The CFA have their opinions, theres scant studies that conclusively prove a lot. We can say fairly safely, that as far as the results go...not much has changed. And on the heels of that, violent crime and gun related crime have been trending down for decades. If Im not mistaken mostly in tandem with the US. So.....isnt it fair to ask the question. Um with all the GC we have brought in......Shouldn't there be a very oticeable deviation? Maybe there is, dont know for sure ad really immaterial.
The gun crowd if you will has for years, years argued. Leave us alone, Why dont you go after the real problem. Criminals. I also but this is just my personal opinion feel that we should be counting domestic violence in that, as well as mental health and suicide. Both of which some measures have been brought in. Its arguable if its enough, but again I would first look at why leo and the system too often are fails women and make more changes there, and while this is changing, why more research and preventative measures in suicides isnt done first ( people dont like to talk about that one).
Our gun death per capita is these days around 2.7. When its parsed down to gun death related to crime. Around 0.5.
So Im wondering just what the real problems are.
Gangs/drugs etc certainly. Well as has been mentioned they arent having trouble arming themselves. This is inarguable I would think.Should that come as any surprise. They dont have any trouble getting hard drugs either........If politicians like Tory and at the fed/provincial level want to make noise about "making the streets safer". As JT recently said "We have to balance the rights of legal gun owners against public safety.
Then go after the problem. Do things, that will produce results and as Trimmer and history has shown, half measures dont cut it. They adapt, as they are to the crackdown on smuggling. Theres all kinds of adages about treating symptoms and not the causes.
That though might entire some political will. Getting "tough on crime" isnt exactly one of our strong suits
damn iphones, phat fingers and auto spellers. Cant be bothered to edit :)
Absolutely! And votes....don't forget votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
And when the day comes that they get restrictions placed on the number of handguns a guy can own, it will be easier to make the same pitch about long guns.
They nibble away, bit by bit...progressively regressive. That's the way our government works.
exactly. Every little bit hurts. The sales guy at Epps was telling me soon they will be engraving another serial number into firearms imported which means basically all of them. This is part of a small arms global bullsheet initiative. Imagine a guy bringing in a $15k Kreighoff trap gun and then having a number engraved on it? These guns all haver serial numbers already!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbear
Bit by bit, little by little they are killing us off.
It's never about saving lives. If it was the alcohol industry would have to be shut down. It kills millions times more people and destroys families yet its condoned and a huge part of global economies. Let's just be honest here. Gun owners are low hanging fruit for politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
More guns in the news
http://globalnews.ca/news/3151604/rc...rearms-in-bag/
Now we will see how the courts handle this !Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
This guy was known to police for drug and weapons violations. They say if convicted he could face up to 10 years in prison. This guy should go straight to jail, no trail, no nothing Spend at least 10 years there then deported back to wherever he originally came from. Tory's stand should be with the judicial department, not the law abiding citizen...
Out in less than 3.
With a list of new clients/customers for his next run....:)Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Well the current cost to keep a federal inmate is now $117,000 p.a. So ten years costs us 1.17million. The U.S. tried this method of throwing away the key but now are reversing that policy. This guy is probably a citizen so will not be getting deported anywhere,in fact he might even be born here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo D
Yes but let's add a twist to this. If someone was to shot a person for breaking into their house and say raping your daughter you would have the book thrown at you. Real criminals are generally treated with kid gloves .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Instead of whining to another useless politician, why not tell your Chief to get off his political correct butt and hammer the thugs.
Weak Pollitically Correct mayors and Police Chiefs are a large part of the problem.
I never saw a law issue an arrest warrant nor apprehend a thug.
Look at Rham and Chiraq, Illinois, same useless political type.
The example is maybe a little over the top,this is not happening every day.Is your solution to shot the suspect.Maybe in America where they have Castle Laws,but even there it does not seem to deter much crime,they still have crimes every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Career criminals are treated with kid gloves but no government has done much about it,many MP,s are lawyers and laws are made with built in loop holes.The laws would have to be much more simple and punishment much harsher,this has not been accomplished by any governments no matter how big their majority was in the house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
He is a good Chief and a street copper. A view of the Toronto Police Website on any given day will reveal how busy they are.If you could pick and chose which calls they should NOT ATTEND let me know which ones.I think the boys and gals in blue are pretty busy.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/
As cops, you and I both know busy doesn't mean effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
No secret where the crime is, who does it, etc., etc., you and I both know that too.
The real Question is why Tory and Emmanuel don't grasp the reality in Taranna and Chiraq?
No doubt their sensitivity to political correctness has neutered them.
You ever see a law arrest and handcuff anyone? Me neither, it takes cops doing what they need to do rather than what they are told to do.
I for one am all for bringing back the death penalty. If you get caught dealing drugs or in the above case smuggling guns into the country, punishment is death. Be it by hanging, electric chair, or a needle. Cost no more than a $100.00 We need some sort of detourant..
bull puckey Gilroy.
While on a loose, general sense I agree with you.
This is just the beginning, tip of the ice berg.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supr...imes-1.3031847
Why does it cost that much?
Well Im guessing in part University Courses, good food, rec rooms etc, etc. Which I should add don't mind that for some.(freudian edited out ;)) .., perhaps its time to decide that career criminals,......well maybe they can do with less...
"Up to 10 years".........which we all know means out in 3 or so,
Again if Tory or JT want sound bytes ( Must balance the rights of legal gun owners versus public safety) type stuff.
Than for Chris sakes, make the streets safer and get tough on gangs/drugs/guns.
Novel Idea right
?
There have been scores of people on death row who were later proven to be innocent so not a great solution.Dealings drugs there are better ways to solve that basically make the drugs legal,Portugal did that and the country has not fallen apart.A deterrent should be hard jail time, everybody has to work,don,t work your rations get cut down to survival amounts.Work hard, show repentance and your time gets cut.Escape or attempted escapes your time gets doubled.Not to many people returned for seconds visits to the Gulag,s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo D
Canada's far north is perfect 1,000klm everwhere from nowhere.Have them build roads and drop timber.
I wouldn't have a problem, at all, with capital punishment when it's a smoking gun case ( which could be a few things, from iron clad DNA, video etc). Think Bernardo, Luka Magnotta and some others for purely reference to what I mean by "smoking gun".
And this has the effect of decreasing the criminal demand for firearms: it takes away both the risk that motivates gun carrying, and also the income that makes those guns affordable. Not that legalization is the panacea some make it out to be, but it is a far more practical and effective approach than is banning handguns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
We need to recognize the difference between the predatory crimes of career criminals and other crimes which are much less serious or much les likely to be repeated, and sentence accordingly. I'm far more concerned about a con man than I am a guy who sells a little weed. James Q Wilson argues that part of the answer to serious crime is to remove predatory criminals from the population via long sentences; you reduce the overall cost of incarceration by not throwing away the key on the relatively harmless guys and the guys who are unlikely to reoffend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Also, the probability of being caught deters people more than a harsh sentence ... the best deterrent is active and effective policing coupled to a good sentencing policy.
As far as putting people to death without trial for smuggling guns goes, let's bear in mind that many smuggling cases involve people who have been coerced into carrying guns over the border, or who may even be unaware of it. One recent gun smuggling trick is to break into a car with Ontario plates in Detroit, conceal guns in the car, then break in and take them when the car gets home to Windsor. Since we're putting the driver of that car to death without trial now, that's the end of your poor Aunt Martha who never hurt a fly. I'm pretty sure that's not a good sentencing policy. :)
Harper passed laws to crack down and the left and judiciary refused to enforce the laws that were on the books. Real work camps like Gilroy proposes are exactly what they need. They need to be productive and pay for their keep. The death penalty has its place for certain crimes but the possibility of hanging an innocent person makes it a no go for me.
Alternatively, Harper passed laws that violated the laws on the books -- i.e., the constitution -- and the courts invalidated the new laws accordingly. The constitutional principle under which the courts threw out mandatory minimums has been around a long time, and it protects us all. Intent, and not action, is the heart of a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
For example, in throwing out the mandatory minimum for gun trafficking, the courts protected every gun owner in the country from being thrown in the slammer with a mandatory minimum sentence for selling a gun without checking the buyer's PAL -- something many gun owners are convinced is allowed under the law.
The Supreme court as well Terry.
If we look at how much money TPS and others, including the RCMP for the Gangs/Drugs and OC units, have received in recent years. It begs the questions.
1) Not enough $?
2) Not managed well enough?
Their intelligence and more, should be second to none.
Any or most street cops will often say "we can only do so much". If our revolving door justice system turns career criminals loose ( after 1/3rd, etc, etc..Nothing boots on the street can do about that. If Crowns are plea bargaining things away ( nothing the boots on the ground can do about that either).
Guess the question to put to Tory and legislators is whether or not they actually want results that make streets safer.
Not sure what exactly New York did back in the 80s/90s, but I imagine it was a combination of things.
Caught Dec 23, with a sack of guns over his back, could they have caught Santa? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ebec-1.3915185
Likely out in 11 months and legal gun owners will be demonized and blamed for the downfall of society. After all you KNOW he was "just starting to turn his life around".
I thought the police brass said Gang guns are locally sourced?
Police brass did not say that. Nobody said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
Police brass have said that criminals are getting a greater proportion of their guns from domestic sources than they have in the past.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
I'll bet they won't define "greater proportion". What does that mean? Instead of 1%,it's 1.5%? It's a ridiculous statement that means nothing without facts to back it up,just more hot air rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Actually, they have defined it. In Toronto, they say it is now 50%, where in past years it was as low as 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The usual issues exist re exactly how the number is derived, what is included, and what is not, but the trend does appear to be real. This is not just hot air.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Tory did and yes the Police chief did say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
The OP is here and reads as follows about this figure:
"Tory blames the spike in gun violence on the fact that there are more illegal firearms on the streets. Some 50 per cent of those guns are smuggled across the U.S. border, Tory said, while the other 50 per cent are domestic firearms making their way into criminal hands.
The mayor said there's an "obvious gap" in the government's oversight of those guns."
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
CBC: "These guns, while acquired legally, are increasingly turning up in criminal investigations, according to the Tory. [sic]"
Star: "This “obvious gap” needs to be addressed as legally purchased Canadian guns are turning up in criminal investigations with greater frequency, Tory writes."
If you believe that these quotes mean Tory said "Gang guns are locally sourced," then you just failed a functional literacy test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
The revolving door has been going on for so long, small things people do not even notice cause the system to break down. For instance Crown Attorney,s change hats many times in a career. One month they may be a Crown and the next they revert back to defense lawyers.Imagine what that does to sentencing and especially when the defense is in front of an old partner in their law firm who might be the Judge.
For myself I would like to see Crown Attorneys paid the going rate of a good defense lawyer and they are Crown,s for life. Judges should not be politically appointed.
I'm having a rough time wrapping my head around that 50% of guns used in violent crime were stolen from lawful owners in Canada. With the very low level of lawful handgun ownership in this country,that defies all logic. For that to be accurate,every firearm owner would be under siege in our homes. I'm not buying into that for one second.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Thanks for being on here are keeping the debates focused on facts.The worse thing the gun lobby does is shoot itself in the foot when they become as emotional as the anti gun lobby.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Well being the investigative type I just simply googled "Stolen guns from homes in Ontario" and up went the pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
OMG OMG Its the Liberals they have been feeding the illegal gun market.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/15...-senators-home
OMG Its getting worse its the OPP supplying the guns
http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/09/14/...ves-thrown-out
You mean maybe we could have a process where qualified people apply to be judges, making that application to, say, an independent advisory committee, and that maybe that committee would then interview the best candidates and send a list of the very best candidates to the AG, who is then legally bound to appoint judges from that list?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/jaac/
I do agree politics and judicial appointments should never mix. And the process is still open to abuse, as the AG still gets discretion (and the committee itself has politics). But we do make an effort to separate the two.
The level of violent crime is even lower. The number of lawful gun owners in this country is far greater than the number of violent criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Also note that the 50% cited may not involve only guns involved in violent crime. A gun recovered in a drug bust is included regardless of whether the guy they busted has ever committed any act of violence.
I remember that incident. Good on Ottawa Police for scooping the lot. Like Durham Regional,they have an excellent clearance rate for this type of crime which further bolsters my theory that there's not as many "domestic" guns entering the black market as politicians would have us believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Maybe a read here will help: https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...afficking.html
When Chief FANTINO was in charge in Toronto he basically fired all the qualified local firearms officers.People with experience who could interview and even ferret out a possible "straw purchaser". We now have a situation where as the article states we have Telephone Detectives who simply calls and decide,s on that basis if an applicant for a PAL in genuine.You reap what you sow.
LOL, Welsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
If Criminals have guns per the news reports ( gee where did they get their stats?)and per others, 50% are claimed to be smuggled in and some papers report about 20% are souced locally thru theft(golly gee whiz who gave them those numbers?)then yes it's follows that criminals have locally sourced guns. Gangs are criminals so gangs would have guns that were locally sourced.
No matter. The point remains there are plenty of existing laws tory just needs his folks to do their jobs enforcing the law and leaving the usual gun owners alone and with less help from Ottawa.
"No matter. The point remains there are plenty of existing laws tory just needs his folks to do their jobs enforcing the law and leaving the usual gun owners alone and with less help from Ottawa."
I think because you had LEO experience in the USA you might be inclined to think the same situation exists here for gun numbers.Its really pretty difficult and takes an enormous amount of work to locate illegal guns.The gang bangers in Toronto don,t rat their friends out, that would get you killed, if you can roll somebody search warrants are almost always needed,also not easy to get.Big City policing is completely different from other places and the bad guys live in big public housing projects,they got the home turf.Especially today,they even got big city mayors who smoke crack with them,here and the USA.
HAH! Not "have",Gilroy........"had" and I'm sure was a "one of" not likely to happen,again,anytime soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy