Murders in Toronto

[iamcanadian]

Re: Difficult Choice

Third, how exactly do you reward someone for something like this.

How about putting her on the public payroll with a serious salary c/w public pension and related benefits we give to public servants (even those who don't do much of any serving); spend money on her to train her to speak in public and send her around to schools and other places to talk more about blowing whistles on crimes and bring this possitive activity to the forefront in the media.

Make a possitive example out of her to encourage others to blow whistles on crimes they know about.

 

[poligeek]

Re: Difficult Choice

Third, how exactly do you reward someone for something like this.

How about putting her on the public payroll with a serious salary c/w public pension and related benefits we give to public servants (even those who don't do much of any serving); spend money on her to train her to speak in public and send her around to schools and other places to talk more about blowing whistles on crimes and bring this possitive activity to the forefront in the media.

Make a possitive example out of her to encourage others to blow whistles on crimes they know about.

This is what I mean about reductionist solutions though. You are looking immediately at the money hook and not the rest of the argument.

I don't think anyone here is saying that whistle-blowers should not have an incentive, that people like this mother should not be rewarded.

That being said the solution to a complex problem of violence on our streets is not ONLY to throw money at it. Sure, invest in it... but investing in whistle-blowing incentives alone is not going to provide a full solution.

As for how to reward her, in this one particular case... well that's partially up to her... what if she likes her current job? Doesn't want to be a public servant, put on a public education tour?

By all means congratulate, support and encouage this woman, reward her with whatever is both within a reasonable power for the community / government to do and what is reasonable to her.

As for makeing her a good example, I think the news media and this woman have done a great job of doing that. She has allowed herself to be interviewed multiple times by many news stations, promoted the reasons why she turned her son in (being to save his and other people's lives), asked for help for her son son on and so forth.

I really don't think the public could ask for a more cooperative better example at this time. It's not like the Toronto community is ignoring the act of this woman or is against her being rewarded.

If we could now move beyond the "throw money at it" tactic, respecting that this form of incentive is part of a solution then maybe we can hear more about what a full solution would also invest in .

 

[iamcanadian]

Throw money in the wind is what happened with $50 Million giving to Toronto to fight guns.

 

[floss]

England has more and more gun crimes all the time and it's getting really worrying. They How can something like this get tackled?

This is an issue I have moving over to Canada in that most households seem to have them in the country maybe??? Am I correct in thinking this?

What is the general feelings on guns out there?

Thanks

Diana x

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

Throw money in the wind is what happened with $50 Million giving to Toronto to fight guns.

With the same $50 Million extra dollars they gave to Toronto to look at ways to deal with gun violence, they could have paid enough whistle-blowers to stop every crime in the City.

Probably would have saved $500 Million a year with it just from stopping the white collar crap going on in Toronto City Hall.

 

[Tresson]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

Of course they work to reduce the number of guns.....in the hands of legitimate owners.

I'm sorry but there is no legitimate reason for a private citizen to own an useable assult rifle. What are they going to use it on? Those really aggressive deers?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

Of course they work to reduce the number of guns.....in the hands of legitimate owners.

I'm sorry but there is no legitimate reason for a private citizen to own an useable assult rifle. What are they going to use it on? Those really aggressive deers?

I have tried to explain this before, but I guess we'll go at it again.

The very term "assault rifle" is part a a game of semantics played by anti-gunners to convince the uninformed that certain types of guns need to be banned. Now, before (or maybe after) you write me off as completely nuts, listen to my arguments.

There is absolutely no difference between some perfectly legitimate hunting rifles and so-called "assault rifles". For example, I own two rifles.

One is a Remington 742 semi-automatic hunting rifle. It is fed from a 5 round magazine, although (illegally) 10 and 20 round magazines are available for it. It fires the .308 Winchester cartridge, which is the civilian name for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. It is also one of the best deer cartridges going.

One is an FN FAL. It is fed from a 5 round magazine, although (illegally) 10 and 20 round magazines are available for it. It fires the .308 Winchester cartridge, which is the civilian name for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. It is also one of the best deer cartridges going.


Both these rifles fire exactly the same cartridges in exactly the same manner. Yet the Remington is classed as "unrestricted", the most easily available classification. The FN FAL is "prohibited, grandfathered". I am grandfathered, and I am literally not allowed to take it from my house, and it will be seized and destroyed on my death.

The ONLY difference is in appearance. That's it. The FN FAL is a military rifle with pistol grip, flash hider, and bayonet lug.

Indeed, the Remington 742 is easier to hide, as it is much shorter and lighter.

Ten years ago the National Firearms Association filed a freedom of information suit that requested all the data and expert opinion used by firearms regulators to decide on what weapons were to be restricted, prohibited (grandfathered) or prohibited (seized without compensation) under the 1993 Campbell gun control act.

What they got was a "Shooter's Bible" (an annual publication that illustrates all the firearms being produced). Pictures of the banned weapons were circled.

The ONLY criteria is they banned what LOOKED scary.

Unbelieveable.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have confidence that there was something more to it than aesthetics.

Even if not, there is no purpose in having more "powerful" weapons generally available — they are superfluous, and present no practical use to society, other than to shoot things — hardly a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, insofar as I find myself concerned.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

I have confidence that there was something more to it than aesthetics.

Even if not, there is no purpose in having more "powerful" weapons generally available — they are superfluous, and present no practical use to society, other than to shoot things — hardly a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, insofar as I find myself concerned.

Geez, Five, you missed my point entirely.

Neither of these weapons is "more powerful". They only look different. As the fire the same ammunition and function in exactly the same way, their power is identical.

Neither of these weapons is particularly over-powered, as the .308 is a very mid-range hunting cartridge.

And yes, appearance is the only difference, and I could pair off many more legitimate hunting rifles and so-called "assault rifles" that are exactly the same in operation and power.

It is part of the process of incrementalism......demonize one type of gun by calling it a "Saturday Night Special', or an "Assault Rifle", have it banned, then move on to the next.

Ever hear of a "Sniper Rifle"?

They're next.

 

[FiveParadox]

I didn't mean one or the other, Colpy, I was referring to guns in general, lol. I understand what you're saying — their selection or which weapons to restrict seems contradictory and, perhaps, incorrect.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

I have confidence that there was something more to it than aesthetics.

You oblivioulsy are very religious in your faith about the integrity of our Civil Servants. I don't doubt what Colpy said on this for a second.

But they did that after likely spending $30 Million dollars on profesional reports that basically confirmed that there was no differences.

So they spend $30 Million to find out that there are no differences. Now they have to ban some guns to justify the expenditures and budget. They get one of the more timid receptionists in the office who knows nothing about guns to circle the ones that look more scary and ban them to justify their jobs.

And, because of that, Colpi here has to be labled and registered as holding a restricted weapon and tracked till the day he dies, when someone will raid his family to sieze this heirloom and destroy it.

This is the most likely scenario, rather than some faith that people will have integrity even when they have no reason to have any integrity because they hold public jobs without accountability.

 

[Doryman]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

I have confidence that there was something more to it than aesthetics.

Even if not, there is no purpose in having more "powerful" weapons generally available — they are superfluous, and present no practical use to society, other than to shoot things — hardly a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, insofar as I find myself concerned.

So a British .303 should be illegal, simply because it is powerful and used to shoot things? What if those things are Moose or Caribou? Still illegal.

I hail from a small Newfoundland outport, and I know VERY few people who do not own several high-powered hunting rifles and shotguns. The majority of Outports are like this. Guns are everywhere, and pretty much everyone know how to use them. There are almost no gun crimes though, except for the few robberies committed in St. John's (a City) to gain money with which to buy Oxycontin or Crystal Meth ( drugs)

So wouldn't this lead one to assume that guns themselves are not the be-all and end-all of the problem?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

I have confidence that there was something more to it than aesthetics.

Even if not, there is no purpose in having more "powerful" weapons generally available — they are superfluous, and present no practical use to society, other than to shoot things — hardly a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, insofar as I find myself concerned.

So a British .303 should be illegal, simply because it is powerful and used to shoot things? What if those things are Moose or Caribou? Still illegal.

I hail from a small Newfoundland outport, and I know VERY few people who do not own several high-powered hunting rifles and shotguns. The majority of Outports are like this. Guns are everywhere, and pretty much everyone know how to use them. There are almost no gun crimes though, except for the few robberies committed in St. John's (a City) to gain money with which to buy Oxycontin or Crystal Meth ( drugs)

So wouldn't this lead one to assume that guns themselves are not the be-all and end-all of the problem?

Yeah.

It might be a surprize to an Albertan, but Newfoundland has the highest per capita ownership of firearms in Canada.

They used to be right at the bottom of the list when it came to violent crime rates, but that was a few years ago.

I don't know about today.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Murders in Toronto

It might be a surprize to an Albertan, but Newfoundland has the highest per capita ownership of firearms in Canada.

They used to be right at the bottom of the list when it came to violent crime rates, but that was a few years ago.

I don't know about today.

They are still the lowest by far.

Beyond a fist fight at a corner bar, that's about the extent of violence anyone ever sees. Which is the way it should be.

 

[Graciously Yours]

I guess like everything else, this is a matter or perspective. Those from outside the city view guns as tools, those within the city view guns as a weapon. That is probably why most in the city are so heart felt against guns(looping in all guns, because from their view they are weapons, and a long weapon is the same as a short weapon). While people in the more rural areas viewing guns as a tool probably see a very defferent tool when they look at a rifle, Vs looking at a pistol or atuomatic.

One needs it for hunting for food(lets hope that is all it is, if not, well - Karma she is a ......), while one see's it as the instrament of death.

 

[outspoken2]

Politicians always blame guns for crime and murder rates when they go up. Guns don't kill people, People kill People. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Prosecute the criminal not the law abiding citizen.
Hey! Politician, penalize the criminal when a gun is used in the comission of a crime. Don't penalize the law abiding citizens by confiscating their guns when they are used for personal protection.

 

[Hank C]

I don't want to hear any more crap from the Toronto centric media.....there have been all of what, 7 murders in Toronto this year? hell Edmonton is probably ahead right now. Ignoring all the drama from the great crime wave of 2005.......one must look at the 10 year stats and compare murders in actual numbers....its was much worse in the early 90s

 

[iamcanadian]

I think the problem is not with the number but with the type of crime.

The numbers or deaths are meaningless. Medical advancements for gun shots and life saving alone would skew results. People not being as good a shoting or the quality and caliber of guns would change the number of people killed.

Why do they not report the number of shots fired?

But generally the problem is the immoral dissregard for their fellow man in all aspects of society, which is most notable in public service, and it generally reflected in all social problems being markedly worse as people personal ethics and morals continue to degrade and putrify further.

Guns are not the problem ethical and moral corruption of all kinds generally accross the board is the problem.

 

[maddyaction]

What really gets me is the feeling of utter defenselessness a person is put in when a gun is pulled. Your life is dependent upon the actions of a person who has made themselves more 'powerful'.

The idea behind a gun, a way of promoting superiority through fear, disgusts me. I know it is idealistic and naive to wish guns away, but I I just can't help it... so I try and think of ways to change it.

I think the most beneficial solution is to look at gun crime and try to answer the questions how, why, and who does it? Through understanding the underlying causes to gun crime, broad labels and actions can start being more effetively targetted, thus seeing results. More importantly however, society needs to use this knowledge of underlying causes to change them, eliminating the need for gun use. Societies image of guns, as an all powerful tool used to gain a sense of power, as well as our fear of them, were created through social perspectives and circumstances in which the need to feel powerful arose! Change these emoitions and you have youselves a long term, EFFECTIVE solution.

I have yet to do any research on this myself, but I guess I had better start!

 

[tamarin]

Toronto's gun problem is predominantly Jamaican in origin. Red flags have been up since the late '70's but politically correct individuals have fought to take them down. The murders in Toronto won't stop until folks like the mayor and police chief get onside. The two are so busy kissing patootie it makes one want to hurl. The police themselves receive little co-operation from the affected communities. Even though most such individuals are no more than second generation- and should be eager to participate in protecting their communities - many have simply never bought into the Canadian ideal of a civil society. And its attendant responsibilities.
I knew Toronto before it ever was associated with omnipresent guns and drugs. It was gold.