How many more citizens have to get shot or killed before we take away their guns in Canada?

200 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Let's get rid of these guns. All of them. The time for discussion, studies, research is over. We need some action from our political leaders or are we going to sit idly by in Canada and wait for the US slaughter to overtake us as well.

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2018/06/22/toronto-police-seize-their...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

To answer the question, evidently none, since your link is all about us proceeding to "take away their guns!"

And they're the right guns to start with, too.  Bought in Florida for sale here on the black market.  You can bet these weren't destined for the hands of target shooters.  These are the guns we need to keep our eyes on.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Let's get rid of these guns. All of them. The time for discussion, studies, research is over. We need some action from our political leaders or are we going to sit idly by in Canada and wait for the US slaughter to overtake us as well.

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2018/06/22/toronto-police-seize-their...

 

Good article thanks.

Quote:

The suspect had picked up the brand new guns in Cornwall and was en route to Toronto when arrested by police, acting Insp. Don Belanger said.

The guns had been purchased in Florida, where police said they retailed for $500, selling in Canada for $4,000.

So this tells me a couple things.

Illegal guns were smuggled in to Canada from a border town (Cornwall) and our current gun restrictions are working very well.   When a shitty $500 pistol is selling for $4000 you know it's hard to get these on the black market. 

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Canadians sit smugly by thinking the USA gun violence is not coming to Canada? It must be nice to live in fantasyland, eh!

it’s like the school shootings in the USA Keep showing it on the news 24/7 like we do now with Cable News and it doesn’t take long for copycats. Just like it doesn’t take Canadian copycats long to start shooting people after watching on Canadian Cable News channels all the shooting I the USA

NorthReport
NorthReport

Targeted hit? It is not outside the reign of possibility  for the that the shelter worker

Uhttps://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/24/woman-in-her-30s-two-men-killed-in-separate-overnight-shootings-in-toronto.html

NorthReport

Targeted hit? It is not outside the realm of possibility for the shelter worker

Uhttps://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/24/woman-in-her-30s-two-men-killed-in-separate-overnight-shootings-in-toronto.html

NorthReport
NorthReport

dp

NorthReport

Knives, revolvers or rifles, legal, illegal, targeted or not, these are all red herrings to avoid addressing the real issues here - how do we round up all the guns in Canada amnesty or whatever, and how do we shut down the excessive violence on TV

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

oh my! What are the lives of innocent victims who can't vote compared to possibly hurting the feelings of non- whites.

Wow. WTF are you trying to say you racist pig.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Knives, revolvers or rifles, legal, illegal, targeted or not, these are all red herrings to avoid addressing the real issues here - how do we round up all the guns in Canada amnesty or whatever, and how do we shut down the excessive violence on TV

 

Easy. Hire more police, give them more firepower and then change the laws to allow warrantless searchs and seizures.  Search homes, vehicles and people. Maybe have the army support the police with their searches.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
how do we round up all the guns in Canada amnesty or whatever

Amnesty will get a few, but only from those who really have little interest in continuing to own a gun.  Anyone who wants to keep theirs, will.  Certainly criminals aren't going to just hand over their gun, so you're not really getting the guns that will become a problem so much as the dusty old guns that really aren't.

Beyond that, all I can suggest is making it a "value proposition".  Make it a really, really bad idea to have (and especially to use) an illegal gun.  The problem right now is that for lots of people, it's a rational risk.

Quote:
and how do we shut down the excessive violence on TV

Where did this come from?

Maybe try good, wholesome programming, like "Touched by an Angel" or "The Waltons".  Literally starve that violent stuff with plenty of uplifting and postive television.

NorthReport

dp

NorthReport

Another day another gun killing spree! Take away all their guns and these mass slayings will quickly diminish

https://globalnews.ca/news/4304882/capital-gazette-shooter-jarrod-ramos-feud-harassing-woman-facebook/

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I think everyone who does not have a gun should put up a sign in front of their house which says, "Gun Free Zone".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think everyone who does not have a gun should put up a sign in front of their house which says, "Gun Free Zone".

Nice try, Mr. Burglar.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Maybe try good, wholesome programming, like "Touched by an Angel"

I remember watching that show as a kid. 

As a catholic who has read the old testiment if lights got all softy glowly heavenly like and someone said "I'm an angel, sent by God" I'd probably dive for my registered and propperly locked and stored guns.  Angels are romantasized assassins.

 

Quote:
Then he said to them, "But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn't have a sword should sell his robe and buy one.
Luke 22:36 Christian Standard Bible
 

Don't wanna be facin no angel unarmed thats for sure.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Another day another gun killing spree! Take away all their guns and these mass slayings will quickly diminish

https://globalnews.ca/news/4304882/capital-gazette-shooter-jarrod-ramos-feud-harassing-woman-facebook/

 

I just read that story. That man 100% wouldn't have harmed anyone if he didn't have access to a gun.  He probably would have just went about his business.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If people are getting murdered by guns in the USA, how is taking away guns in Canada going to solve that?

Oh. And America has a lot of guns. It is what they want. People are going to get killed. We are not going to change America's love for guns. Not by one millionth of a billionth of an iota. Americans don't even think there is one person in Canada worthy of existence, so they are not going to listen to our preaching on guns.

People get killed by guns every day all over the world. Why are white Americans so special? They are people who got killed by guns. That is the way the ball bounces. If Americans want to end gun violence, Americans will end gun violence. If they don't want to end gun violence, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change it. So, uh, what is this about then?

NorthReport

 

Canada, USA  where ever. The shootings  on and on  they go. Where they stop nobody knows!

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4730801

Paladin1

If police were allowed to randomnly stop and search citizens these shootings wouldn't happen as much.

NorthReport

I’m so tired of hearing guns aren’t a problem in Canada

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4346484/toronto-greektown-danforth-logan-shooting/

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

If police were allowed to randomnly stop and search citizens these shootings wouldn't happen as much.

So, you want to live in a police state?

Paladin1

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

If police were allowed to randomnly stop and search citizens these shootings wouldn't happen as much.

So, you want to live in a police state?

Random stops and even searches by police is intrusive but I wouldn't consider it a "police state" if it's localized due to an epademic of violence.  Instituting something like that for high-crime areas during late night and early morning times might reduce crime, criminal activity, get illegals guns off the streets and save lives.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Here's an interesting story about a technology called "ShotSpotter" that uses microphones to triangulate the location of gunshots and alert the police, and that some would like to see deployed in Toronto.

Privacy advocates seem to suggest that microphones listening for gunshots is unnecessarily intrusive on our collective privacy.

I'm not suggesting we MUST deploy ShotSpotter, or that we MUST reinstate carding or that we MUST install CCTV cameras on every corner.  But if we really want "something" to be done about gun violence, that something is likely to take the form of surveillance or control of some sort.  So I think it's reasonable to wonder just what we'd be willing to bless (or tolerate).  If a microphone up on the side of a building listening for gunshots is too much for us, how exactly are we going to find those guns and the people using them (aside from the current working solution: wait until someone uses them)?

I'm very curious to see what the motive of the Danforth shooter was, but I'm also curious to see whether he got that handgun legitimately or not.  Either way, I'm ready to bet that if Toronto had held a "gun amnesty day" on Saturday, this guy probably wouldn't have turned in that gun.

 

Paladin1

Without sounding like a conspiricy nut we're all under survailance already and easily recorded.

Besides typical smart phones, laptops, Smart TVs and now cars being able to be hot mic'd there's technology out there where even a powered down cell phone without a battery can be hit with a low level magnetic field and charged enough to turn it on and easedrop on conversations.

I've seen acoustic radar in action and it can work well but that's going to be investing money into a reactive system that won't really prevent shooters. I know mountians can mess with the acoustics of systems like this, I'd wonder just how well they would work in an urban environment with buildings. Lots of echos.

 

I'd like to see police given more power to deal with this stuff. Drivers who are super drunk can and do get off for things like the judge deeming the police officer didn't have probably cause to pull someone over or administer a test. In many cases police know who these gang members are and what they're doing, why not give them tools to get them off the street easier and faster?

cco

Paladin1 wrote:

Random stops and even searches by police is intrusive but I wouldn't consider it a "police state" if it's localized due to an epademic of violence.  Instituting something like that for high-crime areas during late night and early morning times might reduce crime, criminal activity, get illegals guns off the streets and save lives.

This is a tactic the United States has been using, so it's worth examining the implications. Recall that New York's stop-and-frisk practice was ruled unconstitutional five years ago. It had no measurable impact on crime, and amounted to a license for the police to implement a minorities-only police state. Further, while "high-crime areas" sounds like an objective measurement, in practice it's defined by the police and only restricted in individual cases that go to trial (the overwhelming majority, some 97%, are pled out) when someone can have evidence excluded based on misconduct -- a threshold that's harder to meet in Canada. Since few people choose to live in "high-crime areas" as a lifestyle choice, what it means is that police are deployed against the poor and minorities, and can then use the fact that (for example) they found more people in possession of weed in neighbourhoods where they can search anybody they want with no accountability as further evidence that they need to have no accountability in those neighbourhoods. Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to have different standards of rights based on the neighbourhoods people live in. (Just try arguing that CRA should have the unlimited right to wiretap the phones of anybody on Bay Street since it's a high-tax-evasion area, and see how far that goes.)

Civil rights aren't an arbitrary "difficulty level" set for the police that come with an inevitable side effect of violent crime. Those rights protect us all.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Drivers who are super drunk can and do get off for things like the judge deeming the police officer didn't have probably cause to pull someone over or administer a test.

What's the current situation for "RIDE" programs and suchlike?  I seem to recall that some people noticed that they basically amounted to a random search, but I don't know what came of that, or whether it's still OK to stop and check drivers who aren't driving unsafely.

Quote:
In many cases police know who these gang members are and what they're doing, why not give them tools to get them off the street easier and faster?

I don't think the problem with random (or "random") carding is solely that it's wide open to racism (and really, probably also sexism), but that it's also probably kind of useful, so despite the possibility of abuse, lots of people support it.  Then the argument turns into "civil liberties" versus "effectively getting rid of crime once and for all" or whatever.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Aren't 50%+ of annual gun crimes in Toronto eventually traced back with the serial number and usually is a US-sourced, illegally-smuggled handgun? If we didn't have to live next to the beast next door, we'd have half the problem solved right there.

This is why I am super stoked about October. Finally the police can put their resources and energy in real threats to our national security and move away from BULLSHIT like busting up cannabis dealing and focus on weapon smuggling coming from the US. All that energy in arresting people for possessing,even dealing an innocuous weed and do their real job of keeping the streets safe by eradicating a product which only purpose is to literally KILL people. Its about fucking time.But this is only step number 1. Step 2 is decriminalizing ALL drugs and focusing on deadly illegal weapons coming in from the US. Get their priorioties straight once and for all.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If we didn't have to live next to the beast next door, we'd have half the problem solved right there.

What's the other half of the problem?  18 year olds who bought their handgun legally and legitimately, by claiming to be a collector but really they just wanted to shoot their sworn enemies because of that time they "dissed" them?

Paladin1

Editing for second draft :)

progressive17 progressive17's picture

You can make a gun with a 3-D printer, so you do not need to smuggle it in to Canada.

There are also technologies based on radar which can detect concealed weapons, which are indeed developed in Canada. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

You can make a gun with a 3-D printer, so you do not need to smuggle it in to Canada.

There are also technologies based on radar which can detect concealed weapons, which are indeed developed in Canada. 

I hate to say it but if that becomes a problem ,and it will, maybe 3-D printers should be banned. It's not so crazy seeing  that if I buy a dozen  boxes of Sudafed the police will confront me and the pharmacy would face legal consequences.

If you can ban or set a cap on buying a cold medicine,surely the same can be done to 3-D printers.

And I dont find ShotSpotters an affront to my privacy or civil liberties. They are n0t a bad idea.

Paladin1

CCO I did some research (thanks for prompting me to do some learning) and it looks like there are studies both supporting and condemning stop and search. That is some support it works and others it doesn't.  To shamelessly rip a page out of the anti-firearm play book "if it saves one life" isn't it worth it? 

Failing stop and search what are some other options available to Toronto that could combat the criminal behavior, violence and shootings going on?

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Drivers who are super drunk can and do get off for things like the judge deeming the police officer didn't have probably cause to pull someone over or administer a test.

What's the current situation for "RIDE" programs and suchlike?  I seem to recall that some people noticed that they basically amounted to a random search, but I don't know what came of that, or whether it's still OK to stop and check drivers who aren't driving unsafely.

I'm not 100% sure. I'v never understood peoples negative reaction to ride programs.  Drunk drivers kill and injure way more people in Canada then guns and it's not just gang members or criminals doing it, parents teachers doctors police politicians. All walks of life do it. I'll turn my inside light on roll the window down all the way and lean towards the officer to speak. Other people crack their windows a few centemeters to talk to the cop through the crack and give them a hard time. Like do you not want police taking drunk drivers off the road? It's strange.

 

 

alan smithee wrote:

This is why I am super stoked about October. Finally the police can put their resources and energy in real threats to our national security and move away from BULLSHIT like busting up cannabis dealing and focus on weapon smuggling coming from the US. All that energy in arresting people for possessing,even dealing an innocuous weed and do their real job of keeping the streets safe by eradicating a product which only purpose is to literally KILL people. Its about fucking time.But this is only step number 1. Step 2 is decriminalizing ALL drugs and focusing on deadly illegal weapons coming in from the US. Get their priorioties straight once and for all.

So you want to ban guns, make all drugs legal, and maybe ban 3D printers? Do you plan to treat drugs and drug addiction as a health issue and combat it that way or do you think anyone should be able to do drugs if they want and they should be legal to sell and use anywhere?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

CCO I did some research (thanks for prompting me to do some learning) and it looks like there are studies both

 

 

 

alan smithee wrote:

This is why I am super stoked about October. Finally the police can put their resources and energy in real threats to our national security and move away from BULLSHIT like busting up cannabis dealing and focus on weapon smuggling coming from the US. All that energy in arresting people for possessing,even dealing an innocuous weed and do their real job of keeping the streets safe by eradicating a product which only purpose is to literally KILL people. Its about fucking time.But this is only step number 1. Step 2 is decriminalizing ALL drugs and focusing on deadly illegal weapons coming in from the US. Get their priorioties straight once and for all.

So you want to ban guns, make all drugs legal, and maybe ban 3D printers? Do you plan to treat drugs and drug addiction as a health issue and combat it that way or do you think anyone should be able to do drugs if they want and they should be legal to sell and use anywhere?

 

Actyally,yes. I think drugs are a HEALTH issue not a criminal one. The war on drugs in reality is a war on the citizenry.

And if someone wants to smoke crack or use heroin,I couldn't care less. I care about their right to do with their bodies as they please.

As for 3-D printers. If they become a tool for criminals to make hand guns and AR's,action is needed. I don't necessarily think that they should be banned but if it becomes a national security threat,what are you going to do? You have to do something,you can't condone it.

cco

Paladin1 wrote:

CCO I did some research (thanks for prompting me to do some learning) and it looks like there are studies both supporting and condemning stop and search. That is some support it works and others it doesn't.  To shamelessly rip a page out of the anti-firearm play book "if it saves one life" isn't it worth it? 

No, it's not. That's an argument I've never used when discussing gun legislation, and it's not limited to gun control activists. It's also the argument used by Guantanamo Bay torturers and every authoritarian government in history. Instead, I'd say that the balance between saving lives and infringing on civil rights is something that needs to be discussed with every piece of legislation. Some of them will meet the test, saving a lot of lives for a very minor restriction of freedoms (like, say, mandatory seatbelt laws). Some (like stop-and-frisk of minorities) won't, and some have room for debate (from C-51, which I opposed, to current Canadian gun legislation, which I mostly support).

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

Actyally,yes. I think drugs are a HEALTH issue not a criminal one. The war on drugs in reality is a war on the citizenry.

And if someone wants to smoke crack or use heroin,I couldn't care less. I care about their right to do with their bodies as they please.[/quute]

Thanks to opinions of people here, including you, I feel the same way about it being a health issue where as in the past I wanted drug users locked up.

The problem with crack, heroin and other hardcore drug users though is that their habits and what they're doing with their bodies effects other people. Police and EMS coming into contact with fentanyl and requiring Naloxone comes to mind. I'm also selfish and I don't like my tax dollars going towards paying for people overdosing on drugs getting brought to the hospital or getting Naloxone shots then going back out and ODing again. Also drug users who turn to crime to pay for their habit effects others.

I hope drug use gets turned into a health issue BUT we put money and effort into combating and reducing drug use through those channels and not just take up a "do whatever you want" attitude.

 

Quote:
As for 3-D printers. If they become a tool for criminals to make hand guns and AR's,action is needed. I don't necessarily think that they should be banned but if it becomes a national security threat,what are you going to do? You have to do something,you can't condone it.

A machineshop west of Edmonton was making sub-machineguns (MAC11s). 

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/seized-submachine-guns-built-in-m...

We can't exactly ban machineships. People can and do make guns at home and even in prison.

Take a look at the major causes of unnatural death in BC by year and cause.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/d...

In 2017 it looks like drugs killed 15 times more people (approx) than homicides (of all types).

Banning drugs doesn't work and you agree that it should be treated as a health issue. Maybe something similar should be done with firearms instead of thinking we can just ban them all and they'll go away.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Actyally,yes. I think drugs are a HEALTH issue not a criminal one. The war on drugs in reality is a war on the citizenry.

And if someone wants to smoke crack or use heroin,I couldn't care less. I care about their right to do with their bodies as they please.[/quute]

Thanks to opinions of people here, including you, I feel the same way about it being a health issue where as in the past I wanted drug users locked up.

I'm glad you  evolved on that issue. Locking up sick people is...well,sick.

The problem with crack, heroin and other hardcore drug users though is that their habits and what they're doing with their bodies effects other people. Police and EMS coming into contact with fentanyl and requiring Naloxone comes to mind. I'm also selfish and I don't like my tax dollars going towards paying for people overdosing on drugs getting brought to the hospital or getting Naloxone shots then going back out and ODing again. Also drug users who turn to crime to pay for their habit effects others.

These hard drugs would be a lot safer if they were regulated. Heroin,for example,would be a lot more safe if it were regulated. Fetanyl would not be a thing and instead users could score something in which they know what they are getting. Heroin overdoses would drop dramatically if the user always had the same potency. Fetanyl and different potencies is the biggest problem with heroin. And it wouldn't cost a penny of your precious tax money.

I hope drug use gets turned into a health issue BUT we put money and effort into combating and reducing drug use through those channels and not just take up a "do whatever you want" attitude.

 I can't agree with that. What someone puts in their bodies is their choice and I believe we all should have choice in our lives and shouldn't be dictated what you can and can't do.It's all good as long as you're of age. Oh course if it doesn;t harm others. What adults do behinf closed doots really isn't anyone's business. Not the government,not the police and not private citizens. I'm very tolerant and lax on that. If  they are not harming anyone and it's done in private,why would you care?

Even the government taking your guns. But guns should be regulated and registering your arms is not over reach. We have to do the same with driver's licenses. It's not a big deal to register your arms. Unless you're trying to hide something and/or you're a criminal.

 

A machineshop west of Edmonton was making sub-machineguns (MAC11s). 

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/seized-submachine-guns-built-in-m...

We can't exactly ban machineships. People can and do make guns at home and even in prison.

This should be regulated very strictly. The difference between a gun and a drug is that the gun can be used to kill and harm others. Drugs will harm the user exclusively. And as I said,if drugs were a health issue,overdoses would be few and far between., It would not cost you any of your tax money. That should put your mind at ease as well as your wallet.

I don't like having to take on such a position on hard drugs but a drug free society is a right winger's wet dream. Unless you're Rush Limpdick.. Then you are free to be a hypocrite. It's unrealistic. Like teenagers choosing celibacy. That has no  basis of reality.My permissive ideas extend to your guns. Although I think you'd have to register them,that's it.

NorthReport
progressive17 progressive17's picture
Paladin1

 

MS13 approves

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
We need to remove the guns from everyone

Would you be OK with removing them from the police LAST?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It would be possible to sweep every street and every apartment building with radar devices that can detect weapons and ammo. You would not have to do stop & search or significantly add to police resources.

If the present value of the tax revenue on a life is $1,000,000, then hiring 10 police officers at $100,000 each to prevent one murder would break even for the government. Thus if you want 25 fewer murders, you need 250 police officers by this measure. If they can do better than 25, the government is in profit.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Evidently, cities (or at least Toronto) want to ban handguns.

But every city has banned using handguns in the commission of a crime.

What will (or should) happen to someone with an illegal handgun, once any handgun is de facto illegal?

I seem to recall some asshat boasting about his "piece" on YouTube a few years back and being sentenced to a mandatory minimum for having an illegal handgun, but since he hadn't murdered anyone with it yet, the sentence was overturned.  I'm feeling like if this is so important, maybe there should be a meaningful penalty for possessing a handgun, or else why is any criminal supposed to give a crap?

Quote:
It would be possible to sweep every street and every apartment building with radar devices that can detect weapons and ammo.

Please tell us more about this magick.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

https://patriot1tech.com/
Canadian company which makes weapons detection systems for public spaces.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  But it sounds like that only works if someone is carrying their weapon and walks near enough to a PatriotOne detector.  Are they portable?  Could somone walk up and down the halls of an apartment building with one?

Neverminding, for the moment, how we'd all feel about that.  Note above how apparently a microphone in a public space listening for gunshots is already too much privacy invasion for us to consider, and I'm wondering how a "discreet" full body scan might play out.

Pages