Some chatter on new gun bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoR

Yet Mass shootings still occur in gun free zones, be they schools or clubs. By definition, not effective...

---

This would be true if gun-free zones were created to prevent mass shootings. But that's not the case.

Gun-free zones exist to reduce property owner liability and to reduce incidents involving casual gun-carrying. Bring a weapon to work, and you will likely get into trouble not because your employer is trying to prevent random mass murders but because your employer doesn't want a workplace environment where an armed employee having a bad day injures someone.

Everyone knows you can't stop a crime by putting up a sign. Nobody's attempting to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

The point I was attempting to make is that gun-free zone, are areas of choice for gun violence....

---

Except that they aren't. In the US, far more people are killed outside gun-free zones than are killed within them. One reason is that a large number of homicides happen in the home.

This is a moot point anyway. Council is not making Toronto a gun-free zone. Public spaces in Toronto are already gun-free zones, because you can't carry a handgun around in Canada.

No one is arguing why they were created. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought this thread was about the chatter and bans.

Thanks for agreeing that they are not by definition effective as it pertains to this thread, discussion, topic... nor are signs....or are we changing the discussion and debtate to why they were created????

His point was two fold.
We have the American experience to draw on. Where yes, some public spaces people can in fact carry, concealed or open...unlike CDA. . That hasn’t stopped the shooting in “gun free zones”. Be they schools, night clubs or movie theatre. Which while it’s off topic have not all been created to create safe “work places, public spaces.

And secondly that they are magnets. Are they? Don’t know, don’t care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoR

No one is arguing why they were created.

---

Well, when you say something is ineffective, you are saying it hasn't achieved its purpose. So its purpose is then relevant.

In any case, gun free zones have nothing to do with it. Shootings happen everywhere.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

This thread is about politians (and others occasionally) in TO calling for bans.. And going so far as to make it “official”

So statements, arguments whichever, by anyone. Hopefully relate to that....And hopefully we can all agree banning them, will be ineffective.

And as for Goodale, chiefs, RCMP etc. Well if his/their only concern about it is the anticipated cost...and not the fact it will be ineffective.

Says all that needs to be said. On that “aspect” of the topic.

Other aspects hopefully deal with.

What is the problem
What can be done that combats the problem. Not legal owners, not symptoms (straw men being enticed or co-oerced by criminals gangs /greed) or other

The problem.

Well, that's the real question. The root cause problem is the black market in drugs.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Yep.

Which begs questions demanding answers.
Don’t have time to root through stats, do superficial (at best, the best any of us can do) comparitive analysis look for positive or negative correlations.

So.
At a “glance” meaning off the top of my head. Violent crime has been trending down for a long time. That speaks to social change. Yet, organized crime, gang related shootings (whether direct or indirect) worse.

No doubt, some of the relates to pop growth/density, demographic, socioeconomic things....

The simple, face value test is.
Violent crime down/gang related activity/shootings up.

Says to me once again Leo, intelligence, border services, Justice system. All not doing their jobs...

Sometime in the late 80s, experts were warning organized gangs were on their way here. The crips, the bloods, the Russians, more

But back then, cops were cops, and chiefs were cops. Today, career politicians like Blair and Goodale.

I know many here hate the registry. I think it was ineffective and a waste.
Today between cyber crime, money laundering, terrorist financing, identity theft and more. It can be a tool cops need. Me, I just highly and severely doubt their motives for it.see Goodales response about the cost.

Ever the politician. I’m sure he felt safe in saying what he thought the masses would want to hear. They are good politicians who care suddenly about cost...

L.....M.....A.....O

Let alone not a sound byte about how ineffective it would be...........

I don’t mind and largely support retailers recording transactions. For Christ sakes

There are reasons we can’t open bank accounts without 3 peices of ID. Often face to face meetings, passports, and more........depending on specifics. It takes more, is recorded more and monitored more..than buying guns from retailers...

Won’t help much when someone says. Yes I bought that rifle, sold it to joe blow with a pal. What he did with it. Not my problem. My hands are clean. But will help with bulk buyers...

Regardless, it all comes back on the failings of Leo and not getting serious and going after gangs....

My memoirs are fuzzy but how did they clean up NY back in the 80s/90s.

By targeting citizens, little fish?

There is more to just cops doing their jobs, we have to get after the judges to hit these criminals with the stiffest, harshest sentences available to them .
It seems that criminals with guns just laugh at the spanking on the wrist sentences handed by our weak wristed judges.:angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

There is more to just cops doing their jobs, we have to get after the judges to hit these criminals with the stiffest, harshest sentences available to them .
It seems that criminals with guns just laugh at the spanking on the wrist sentences handed by our weak wristed judges.:angry:

---

Harper tried. Brought in mandatory sentences for gun crimes. Judges refused to enforce them. Liberal Azzz kissing judges who don't enforce the law should be jailed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This would be true if gun-free zones were created to prevent mass shootings. But that's not the case.

Gun-free zones exist to reduce property owner liability and to reduce incidents involving casual gun-carrying. Bring a weapon to work, and you will likely get into trouble not because your employer is trying to prevent random mass murders but because your employer doesn't want a workplace environment where an armed employee having a bad day injures someone.

Everyone knows you can't stop a crime by putting up a sign. Nobody's attempting to do that.



Except that they aren't. In the US, far more people are killed outside gun-free zones than are killed within them. One reason is that a large number of homicides happen in the home.

This is a moot point anyway. Council is not making Toronto a gun-free zone. Public spaces in Toronto are already gun-free zones, because you can't carry a handgun around in Canada.

---

"[COLOR=#000000]because you can't carry a handgun around in Canada." I though that was so as well, but the way the legislation actually reads, you may not carry a restricted firearm around. However, the chief C.O. affirmed you can hunt small game, with antique handguns, since none of the 3 firearm classification apply to them. I can't imagine the number of certifiable antique handguns will make their way across the line given that bit of information.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Be that as it may, you won't be carrying an antique handgun around in Toronto.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk