Gun fight caught on camera in Toronto

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Even if they don't act as a deterrent, what about recidivism rate? Somewhat stands to reason that if you have a career criminal get busted with a crime and gets a light sentence he'll be back on the streets a lot sooner if he was forced to spend the next 20 years in jail due to a mandatory minimum.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Severe mandatory minimum for possession of an illegal/stolen/imported handgun might make these guys weigh carrying vs spending 10 years in prison. Right now it looks like the max is 5-10 years depending on the offense.

Regardless of desire for them, the courts in Canada are not allowing mandatory minimums. They started overturning them when Harper tried to institute them and they haven't stopped since. The rules around credit for time served and statutory release are also most likely sticking around. And if people wanted some sort of US type three strikes and it's life rule, chances are a Canadian court would never uphold that.

If the Liberals tried to make an exception and introduce a minimum 10 year sentence for possession of a firearm without a license, it would get tossed in a heartbeat. The justification that would most likely be used by the court is that while it could be used to sentence a gang member with a smuggled Glock in his car, it would also be used against the license holder who had a lapsed license and was only a paper criminal.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Some courts have upheld them, it's not an exact science. Most of those that weren't upheld were because of, as your example suggested, the judge could see they were grossly disproportionate because they applied to broadly.

But if they took the time to hammer down the mandatory minimums, so that someone who forgot to renew their licence and a gang member who shot at a rival gang member weren't placed into the same category, you could start seeing them being more actively upheld.

Possession of firearm during a violent crime (robbery, assault, etc)? Automatic 20 years and call it a day. But instead if they kill a child and are REALLY sorry for it, they might have to go without dessert for two weeks.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

No one is saying that total success must be a condition of any actions, simply that any actions must have a realistic chance at impacting the problem. A such, I'd ask the following (keeping in mind that the concern has mostly been around handguns):

Which of the existing portions of the Firearms Act do you feel have failed and allowed the current gang violence to propagate?

Which proposals by either the federal government or Toronto city council do you feel would impact gang violence?

I think the laws as they currently stand have effectively prevented mass shootings in this country. The types of weapons used in these incidents are small arms that, while terrifying, do not provide the opportunity for the indiscriminate massacres you see in America.

Headlines like "1 Dead 13 Injured" sound horrific. In America, that headline is 10 dead, 15 more critical.

Call me privileged, but I have lost exactly zero minutes of sleep over gang violence in my life. Mostly because I'm not in that life.

A buddy of mine has an AR-15. He detailed exactly how many steps he had to go through to get it. He has handguns. He's told me how he has to transport them, and how he's allowed to sell them, and what happens if he doesn't. And I'm okay with that.

Guns are dangerous. Nobody in civil society needs them outside of designated places ie ranges, or when they're hunting. Unless you're in a remote, rural isolated area, you don't need a gun for protection. Because nobody else, generally, has them either.

The biggest benefit to our forms of gun control is that when you see someone with a gun, without a badge, you KNOW they're not on Team People. Personally, I like that.

Guns, as a general rule, do not make things safer. I like law enforcement knowing exactly who has a gun, how many they have, and where they live. It makes it a lot easier to throw the book at people when they commit crimes like this.

These people should have the book thrown at them, there's no question. I understand not wanting to jump through all the hoops and red tape, but I think there is tremendous public benefit in creating a culture where it's simply not worth most people's time and energy to own a firearm.

[CaptainCrunch]

You know, I'm going to wax on a bit, sorry about that. But I'm sitting up, not interested at all in sleeping. Tomorrow I'm going to a memorial service for a colleague and a friend who with his wife and a young girl was taken out of this world by an angry person with a fire arm.

I've come to the realization over about the last week, that I'm not ok with it, I'm not ok with a lot of things, and that angry person with a gun has created loss and anger and destruction, not only for the victims, but their families and the people that knew them.

I find it funny that I represent a paradox, I should be a gun guy, I spent a few years in the army, and was around them every day, I was trained to be safe with them, to use them effectively and I was trained in what they do. But I'm not and never have been a gun guy because my confessional here is that guns frighten me. Not in the use of them, not in a fear that I'm going to blow my foot off when I'm cleaning one. But that small hole at the end of the barrel is an incredible engine of destruction in the wrong hands. That once that trigger is pulled, whether you mean it or not, it can't be recalled.

That a gun while it has its uses for hunting, or target shooting is in the wrong hands death.

I've had the argument here that I don't believe in guns for home defense, the margin for error is too huge. I've said before that a gun in the wrong hands creates a sense of false bravery, and things can go off of the rails and as soon as you point it at someone you lose a little bit of control over the fates of yourself and the person your aiming at.

I'm the person that thinks that realistically guns belong in the hands of those that are well trained, and well reasoned. I believe that guns belong in the hands of the police and the army.

Over the last couple of weeks, every shooting has really effected me and gave me a sense of anger that I don't really like to feel. Its ugly and its cold and its really sucked the color out of the room for me, but I'll heal, a person that gets shot by some nut with a gun, or a gang member or someone with a lot of anger, usually they don't heal, they're dead. That's the ugly truth

Now, I don't believe that a ban on hand guns is going to do a whole lot of good, I do believe that obviously we have to look at the root causes that cause people to use guns for profit or revenge, or to feel like they are more then they are.

But I also believe in justice, justice is not vengeance, but I have no sympathy for someone that picks up a gun and shoots another human for any reason. And I have this theory that once you've shown your willing to cross that line and take a life, its going to get easier to make that decision in the future. A component of justice is the safety of the population, so the ultimate justice would be to lock those that use a gun to kill away, the ultimate justice is that those that sell weapons illegally for profit should never see the light of day.

You can say that we're different then the States, that we can stand up on a podium and look down our noses at the States and their level of gun violence, but this should never be a debate about numbers unless your a Stalinist.

10 is a tragedy, 1000 is a statistic, that to me is a false argument, even one is too many.

[OMG!WTF!]

Here's why strict hand gun laws, or even an out right ban, is a good thing. It's because guys like me don't bother with it. If I could just go buy a hand gun, or a couple dozen hand guns, with not a single hoop to jump through, I probably would. I'm not going to shoot anyone. I'm no threat what so ever. I'm a really good guy with a gun. I might scare bears away once in a while a feel kinda cool with it under my truck seat. But fewer guns mean less gun violence every single time. You just can't let the cat out of the bag. And we're getting close to having too many cats because our idiot neighbors have too many cats...all scratching at our border.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Here's why strict hand gun laws, or even an out right ban, is a good thing. It's because guys like me don't bother with it. If I could just go buy a hand gun, or a couple dozen hand guns, with not a single hoop to jump through, I probably would. I'm not going to shoot anyone. I'm no threat what so ever. I'm a really good guy with a gun. I might scare bears away once in a while a feel kinda cool with it under my truck seat. But fewer guns mean less gun violence every single time. You just can't let the cat out of the bag. And we're getting close to having too many cats because our idiot neighbors have too many cats...all scratching at our border.

The problem is that the idea of banning legal handgun possession and use with the intent of stopping gang violence in inherently flawed. The people using handguns to shoot at each other on Toronto streets are not getting the PAL, they are not buying their guns at a retailer, they are not members of an approved range and they are not following any of the storage and transport laws. An outright ban on hanguns with a license isn't going to stop gang members from sourcing their handguns, because a ban means nothing to the people already breaking the existing laws.

If the government truly cared about dealing with gang violence, they'd be looking at it's root causes, ways to transition gang members out of that lifestyle, securing the Canada/US border and by extension, the native reserves along the US border that are huge smuggling corridors. But they have chosen to twist statistics, use misleading data and outright lies to foster an environment of fear in order sell a bill that will not affect criminals and only introduce more red tape into an already robust regulatory system. But it sure sounds good to those who are relying on the government to be honest about the existing laws.

[Ducay]

I'm sorry, does anyone think longer sentences are really the answer?

"Yo dawg, I'm not touching that gun, I can now get 10 years instead of 5! Isn't worth the risk anymore. That is a strong deterrent for something I WAS ABOUT TO USE TO TRY AND COMMIT MURDER"

[Fuzz]

Use a gun in a crime, get shot with it in the kneecap. Better hope you didn't use a bazooka...

[Murph]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The problem is that the idea of banning legal handgun possession and use with the intent of stopping gang violence in inherently flawed. The people using handguns to shoot at each other on Toronto streets are not getting the PAL, they are not buying their guns at a retailer, they are not members of an approved range and they are not following any of the storage and transport laws. An outright ban on hanguns with a license isn't going to stop gang members from sourcing their handguns, because a ban means nothing to the people already breaking the existing laws.

If the government truly cared about dealing with gang violence, they'd be looking at it's root causes, ways to transition gang members out of that lifestyle, securing the Canada/US border and by extension, the native reserves along the US border that are huge smuggling corridors. But they have chosen to twist statistics, use misleading data and outright lies to foster an environment of fear in order sell a bill that will not affect criminals and only introduce more red tape into an already robust regulatory system. But it sure sounds good to those who are relying on the government to be honest about the existing laws.

The thought that gang members are the only ones who are going to use hand guns when committing crimes is inherently flawed. I know the guy who owns one of the biggest outdoor outfitting stores in St. John’s and he says they have a hard time keeping handguns on the shelf. Anyone who thinks one of those guns won’t eventually be used in a crime committed by someone not in a gang or picked up by a kid and accidentally discharged is kidding themselves for their own purposes.

Human right to life outweighs any made up right to own a hand gun. Hand guns are specifically designed to kill people. Not to kill animals, or to protect someone from a bear attack, or any other BS reason.

Anything short of a complete ban on the import and sale of hand guns is illogical. If it were up to me, even the manufacturing of the hand guns and their ammunition would be banned.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I'm sorry, does anyone think longer sentences are really the answer?

"Yo dawg, I'm not touching that gun, I can now get 10 years instead of 5! Isn't worth the risk anymore. That is a strong deterrent for something I WAS ABOUT TO USE TO TRY AND COMMIT MURDER"

From a public safety standpoint, yes.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I'm sorry, does anyone think longer sentences are really the answer?

"Yo dawg, I'm not touching that gun, I can now get 10 years instead of 5! Isn't worth the risk anymore. That is a strong deterrent for something I WAS ABOUT TO USE TO TRY AND COMMIT MURDER"

Did you intentionally black up the gang member in your hypothetical scenario or was it unconscious? I'm betting it was unconscious, I just wanted to point it out.

Seeing as, you know, the most violent gangs in this city are Vietnamese.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The problem is that the idea of banning legal handgun possession and use with the intent of stopping gang violence in inherently flawed. The people using handguns to shoot at each other on Toronto streets are not getting the PAL, they are not buying their guns at a retailer, they are not members of an approved range and they are not following any of the storage and transport laws. An outright ban on hanguns with a license isn't going to stop gang members from sourcing their handguns, because a ban means nothing to the people already breaking the existing laws.

If the government truly cared about dealing with gang violence, they'd be looking at it's root causes, ways to transition gang members out of that lifestyle, securing the Canada/US border and by extension, the native reserves along the US border that are huge smuggling corridors. But they have chosen to twist statistics, use misleading data and outright lies to foster an environment of fear in order sell a bill that will not affect criminals and only introduce more red tape into an already robust regulatory system. But it sure sounds good to those who are relying on the government to be honest about the existing laws.

You're conflating the issue. Restricting handgun sales is a good thing because it's bad when people have handguns. As others have pointed out, a handgun is designed to take human lives. The more people in a society who want nothing to do with guns, the safer that society is.

As to 'they're already breaking the law, they don't care' - giving prosecutors the ability to charge multiple violations gives the government more ammunition (intended the #### outta that pun) when they go to trial. Al Capone went down for tax evasion, not murder. If you can add four or five separate firearms charges to attempted murder/murder, each carrying 3-5 years, it allows you to still get the person off the street if the actual case isn't as strong.

In this case, you can't see who's driving. You can't see who's shooting. But when you later arrest people in connection and they have a cache of weapons, there you go.

If you're not in a gang, you flat out don't need a handgun. A handgun is a murder weapon, and you need to provide more justification for why you as a law abiding citizen need one beyond 'I want it'. It's not a constitutional right, it's a death machine.

Anyone who really wants to play with guns should join the army. They have lots, and they could use the help.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Murph

The thought that gang members are the only ones who are going to use hand guns when committing crimes is inherently flawed. I know the guy who owns one of the biggest outdoor outfitting stores in St. John’s and he says they have a hard time keeping handguns on the shelf. Anyone who thinks one of those guns won’t eventually be used in a crime committed by someone not in a gang or picked up by a kid and accidentally discharged is kidding themselves for their own purposes.

Human right to life outweighs any made up right to own a hand gun. Hand guns are specifically designed to kill people. Not to kill animals, or to protect someone from a bear attack, or any other BS reason.

Anything short of a complete ban on the import and sale of hand guns is illogical. If it were up to me, even the manufacturing of the hand guns and their ammunition would be banned.

The people that your friend sells handguns too are all licensed, are made to maintain a range membership to prove use and are subject to daily background checks. And unless he is aiding in straw purchases, he's not selling to criminals because they don't buy their guns from stores.

Banning an object because it might be used irresponsibly at one point in the future is a poor justification for it, how many legally owned handguns cause death in Canada each year? Your argument is basically that every licensed firearm owner is a criminal in waiting, only because of the fact that they own a gun.

The only reason why handguns in Canada are relegated to target shooting in Canada for the vast majority of owners is that hunting with them was prohibited back in the 90's. It is completely possibly to hunt with a handgun and is done frequently where it is allowed. Canada also does issue permits to carry a handgun for wildlife protection.

While a ban on the sale or manufacture of handguns in Canada might sound nice, it would do nothing to stop cross border smuggling and criminals would still have their guns. The "handgun ammunition" argument is silly since the ammunition used in handguns is also used in other firearms. There might be one or two oddball calibers that are not used by rifles, but calibers like 9mm and .40 S&W are used in rifles as well.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

You're conflating the issue. Restricting handgun sales is a good thing because it's bad when people have handguns. As others have pointed out, a handgun is designed to take human lives. The more people in a society who want nothing to do with guns, the safer that society is.

As to 'they're already breaking the law, they don't care' - giving prosecutors the ability to charge multiple violations gives the government more ammunition (intended the #### outta that pun) when they go to trial. Al Capone went down for tax evasion, not murder. If you can add four or five separate firearms charges to attempted murder/murder, each carrying 3-5 years, it allows you to still get the person off the street if the actual case isn't as strong.

In this case, you can't see who's driving. You can't see who's shooting. But when you later arrest people in connection and they have a cache of weapons, there you go.

If you're not in a gang, you flat out don't need a handgun. A handgun is a murder weapon, and you need to provide more justification for why you as a law abiding citizen need one beyond 'I want it'. It's not a constitutional right, it's a death machine.

Anyone who really wants to play with guns should join the army. They have lots, and they could use the help.

Handgun sales are already incredibly restricted in Canada and the overwhelming majority of people (including gun owners) are fine with that. It's when the government floats ideas that do nothing for public safety or try to pass off 2+ million people as a waiting threat that people tend to get irritated. Our laws force criminals to turn to the black market to obtain firearms while letting those of us who practice a hobby while following the law do so.

If someone floated the idea of mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms, the first people to support it would be firearms owners. Criminals showing the abject disregard for public safety should be facing the strictest punishments possible, the challenge is getting those punishments past the courts. Things like smuggling firearms, selling firearms to unauthorized people, selling prohibited firearms, possessing firearms when unauthorized and using a firearm during the commission of a crime should all be charges that carry severe sentences. We should also look at eliminating concurrent sentences. What use is it when someone is found guilty of a dozen firearms charges but can serve them all at once?

As for justification for legal ownership, people use handguns every day in Canada for target shooting, competition, collecting of significant pieces and protection of life (Canada does issue permits for concealed carry and for protection from wildlife). If it were allowed, many would also use handguns for hunting and pest control.

Firearms are dangerous, they should be regulated and like any other object, can be misused. Our current laws do a pretty good job at striking a balance between keeping those who shouldn't have access to them from having easy access and allowing those who do operate within the framework laid out by the government to participate in a huge amount of legal activities. If more laws are needed, they should be targeted towards eliminating the illegal use of firearms, but no proposals that do this have been put forward as of late.

[handgroen]

I hate this thread

[Murph]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The people that your friend sells handguns too are all licensed, are made to maintain a range membership to prove use and are subject to daily background checks. And unless he is aiding in straw purchases, he's not selling to criminals because they don't buy their guns from stores.

Banning an object because it might be used irresponsibly at one point in the future is a poor justification for it, how many legally owned handguns cause death in Canada each year? Your argument is basically that every licensed firearm owner is a criminal in waiting, only because of the fact that they own a gun.

The only reason why handguns in Canada are relegated to target shooting in Canada for the vast majority of owners is that hunting with them was prohibited back in the 90's. It is completely possibly to hunt with a handgun and is done frequently where it is allowed. Canada also does issue permits to carry a handgun for wildlife protection.

While a ban on the sale or manufacture of handguns in Canada might sound nice, it would do nothing to stop cross border smuggling and criminals would still have their guns. The "handgun ammunition" argument is silly since the ammunition used in handguns is also used in other firearms. There might be one or two oddball calibers that are not used by rifles, but calibers like 9mm and .40 S&W are used in rifles as well.

Yeah, ok dude.

You carry on ignoring the fact that deaths will result from public ownership of hand guns. You carry on ignoring the fact that preventing even one of those deaths (intentional or otherwise) whether it be perpetrated by a legally licensed firearms owner or otherwise, should trump your right to own a tool designed to kill humans.

EDIT: And before you go down the “lots of things used irresponsibly can kill humans” road. Provide me an example of another commercially available item that is designed primarily for the purpose of killing humans. Using a hand gun as an object for killing a human is understatedly irresponsible, its also using it for its intended purpose.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Handgun sales are already incredibly restricted in Canada and the overwhelming majority of people (including gun owners) are fine with that. It's when the government floats ideas that do nothing for public safety or try to pass off 2+ million people as a waiting threat that people tend to get irritated. Our laws force criminals to turn to the black market to obtain firearms while letting those of us who practice a hobby while following the law do so.

I don't understand your point here. Isn't that exactly what these sorts of laws are designed to do? It seems to be addressing only a portion of the problem - once you've cut off easy access to legal firearms for organized crime (I'm going to stop saying 'gangs' because gangs implies we're worried about a bunch of black teenagers on street corners. The problem is organized crime) then your law enforcement has to prioritize going after said black market. Which is no doubt fraught with peril, but nobody makes someone become a cop. That's the job. I would be happy if increased firearm restrictions also came with an increase in funding for actual police work, ie taking down the crime syndicates that supply this black market.

If someone floated the idea of mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms, the first people to support it would be firearms owners. Criminals showing the abject disregard for public safety should be facing the strictest punishments possible, the challenge is getting those punishments past the courts. Things like smuggling firearms, selling firearms to unauthorized people, selling prohibited firearms, possessing firearms when unauthorized and using a firearm during the commission of a crime should all be charges that carry severe sentences. We should also look at eliminating concurrent sentences. What use is it when someone is found guilty of a dozen firearms charges but can serve them all at once?

Mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional and don't address the problem of organized crime. And longer sentences are not necessarily the answer - if you're going to imprison people, the government should be taking proactive steps to ensure people don't reoffend. The conversation of prison reform is for a different thread.

As for justification for legal ownership, people use handguns every day in Canada for target shooting, competition, collecting of significant pieces and protection of life (Canada does issue permits for concealed carry and for protection from wildlife). If it were allowed, many would also use handguns for hunting and pest control.

All you have to do is look to the south for all the stupid things people do with guns when 'it's allowed'. They bring semi-automatic rifles to Wal Mart. That's crackers.

I understand what people use handguns for. I don't see why one would need a handgun for protection from wildlife; a shotgun seems like a far better tool for that job, given how difficult it is to actually hit a wild animal with a handgun.

I also don't accept that pest control is an acceptable use of a handgun. You can do that with a small calibre rifle - I have friends that love to pass the days sniping gophers in the countryside.

Concealed carry is absurd. Unless you're in private security or law enforcement, you don't need a weapon on you at all times in this country. You just don't.

Firearms are dangerous, they should be regulated and like any other object, can be misused. Our current laws do a pretty good job at striking a balance between keeping those who shouldn't have access to them from having easy access and allowing those who do operate within the framework laid out by the government to participate in a huge amount of legal activities. If more laws are needed, they should be targeted towards eliminating the illegal use of firearms, but no proposals that do this have been put forward as of late.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms...a.php#Overview

According to Statistics Canada, the 2011 rate of 0.46 firearm homicides per 100,000 was the lowest in 50 years. They attribute this primarily to the decrease in homicides via handgun, though they note that 2/3 of all firearm homicides in 2011 were still committed by handgun.

They don't provide a breakdown of organized crime connections, but it's probably fair to say that not all 158 people murdered by guns in 2011 had ties to organized crime. What is more likely is that someone, likely a law abiding citizen, got mad, had a handgun, and killed someone.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/cont...n-control.html

In 2016, there were 223 firearm related deaths. By and large, these are not mob-related.

"A study in rural New Brunswick and PEI found that two-thirds of the women whose homes had firearms said knowing firearms were present made them more fearful for their safety and well-being, and 70 per cent said it affected their decisions whether to tell others about or seek help for abuse they received."

If you tighten gun control restrictions, you will keep more women alive. You will allow more people to escape domestic violence, and you will require fewer government resources to help these people put their lives back together.

A desire to waste gophers does not trump that. Every gun owner is law abiding until the moment they aren't, and unfortunately that moment usually results in a body. And often, it's a woman who trusted the man who killed her.

Organized crime is a boogeyman that doesn't actually affect the majority of Canadians. Domestic abuse does.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...60121b-eng.htm

Reducing the number of firearms that can be used in domestic incidents is reason enough to increase the restrictions. Especially considering handgun registration has shot up dramatically since 2015.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3356614/a...broke-records/

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Reducing the number of firearms that can be used in domestic incidents is reason enough to increase the restrictions.

As is stands right now, getting a restricted licence involves getting the green light from not only your current spouse, but your ex too. And this person can basically veto your licence at any time but calling the cops and saying they feel threatened by the licenced individual.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

As is stands right now, getting a restricted licence involves getting the green light from not only your current spouse, but your ex too. And this person can basically veto your licence at any time but calling the cops and saying they feel threatened by the licenced individual.

That sounds very sensible. Do women know about this? Is it often invoked? I confess, if this isn't the first time I've ever heard of this, I certainly haven't heard it enough that it's common knowledge.

Given what 70% of respondents said, it feels insubstantial. At the very least, it could do with 1/10th the PSAs drinking and driving gets.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Do women know about this? Is it often invoked?

You'd have to think so. Is it often invoked? No idea. I know it has been cited as the reason why certain applicants were declined. The RCMP has a stat that shows how many licences were applied for, how many were accepted and how many were rejected and for what reason. Pretty sure references are the reason for some and unacceptable mental health issues being another.

**edit**
Managed to find it. It's from 2016:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/2016-co...irearms-report

About 3/4 of the way down the page.