-
December 20th, 2016, 10:06 AM
#41
Has too much time on their hands

Originally Posted by
welsh
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.
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.
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.
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
-
December 20th, 2016 10:06 AM
# ADS
-
December 20th, 2016, 11:19 AM
#42
[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
-
December 20th, 2016, 12:12 PM
#43
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 -
-
December 20th, 2016, 12:54 PM
#44

Originally Posted by
Dythbringer
Fifty percent seems to be an ambiguous round number for a fact gotten from the police.
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.
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.

Originally Posted by
Dythbringer
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....
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.
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.

Originally Posted by
Dythbringer
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)?
Likely both.
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.
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
December 20th, 2016, 02:02 PM
#45

Originally Posted by
JoePa
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 -
I think we would all rather stick with our figures.
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.
-
December 20th, 2016, 02:21 PM
#46
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.
Last edited by JBen; December 20th, 2016 at 02:33 PM.
-
December 20th, 2016, 03:20 PM
#47
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
I’m suspicious of people who don't like dogs, but I trust a dog who doesn't like a person.
-
December 20th, 2016, 04:49 PM
#48
Last edited by Rugger; December 20th, 2016 at 10:02 PM.
My attitude towards you depends upon how you have treated me.
-
December 20th, 2016, 08:08 PM
#49
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 |
-
December 20th, 2016, 08:30 PM
#50
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.
If a tree falls on your ex in the woods and nobody hears it,you should probably still get rid of your chainsaw. Just sayin'....