Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 145 to 160 of 160

Thread: Toronto shootings

  1. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha Jones View Post
    More girls and boys clubs. More government assisted programs. Make post secondary free or heavily assisted
    Let me guess, you vote NDP every election dont you??

  2. #146
    We'll have a new record by June.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil C. McNasty View Post
    3 separate shootings last night, one person dead:

    https://torontosun.com/news/local-ne...rate-shootings

    Aria Alexander

  3. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha Jones View Post
    More girls and boys clubs. More government assisted programs. Make post secondary free or heavily assisted.
    So university staff and faculty will forego their pay? Land for the facilities will be donated? Buildings will be built at no cost and equipment given?

    KK

  4. #148
    "Toronto Police say the deadly shooting — the city’s fourth murder in six days — unfolded just after midnight Saturday at 100 Dundalk Dr., near Kennedy Rd. and Hwy. 401 in Scarborough."

    The 4 murder victims appear to be a diverse (diversity) group. 3 males and 1 female. It appears:

    1) One African Canadian or Caribbean black
    2) One Kenyan
    3) One Tamil
    4) One Somali

  5. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And as I've said repeatedly I have little issue with Canadian gun laws. We hit a reasonable balance.

    What I don't like is that most of the terb gun lobby object to the idea of registration as a plot by "gun grabbers" but have no issue with the potential "car grabbers".
    If the laws were static and not subject to political expediency, I would have no problem with registration... although I think that there is little benefit.

    The problem is that there are very vocal activists out there who have an undue influence on politicians, and who have an unwavering goal of banning all guns.

    I can point you to the Coalition for Gun Control and Polysouviens/Polyremembers. The latter had enough press exposure and editorial support and political shaming to get Quebec politicians to have all long-guns in Quebec registered by the end of this month. This measure is so popular that only 15% of the 1.6 million estimated long-guns in Quebec have been registered so far, revealing a growing revolt against a government out of touch with its rural electors.

    They just want to ban the most 'dangerous' guns...... continuously until they are all gone. As all guns are potentially lethal, ultimately we will be down to the single shot Cooey .22 rifle. And when a gangbanger does something bad with that, they will have to ban in turn that dangerous gun.

    The leaders of these groups are radical feminists intent on punishing men (all men) for their innate violence. Yes, in the radical feminist world, every man is innately violent. That is also the cause of the Patriarchy that has to be dismantled for women to achieve equality of outcome. Men will be violent, so they have to have their deadly toys taken away from them.

    If all guns are registered, and politicians feel the heat from the so-called progressives and they 'have to do something!', the registry will tell them exactly where to go to get those guns, and charge their owners with illegal possession of firearms, the day after they reclassify them and their licenses are no longer valid to possess them.

    Registration is a confiscation tool. It happened in the UK in 1997 and it happened twice in Australia in the last decade.

  6. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Darts View Post
    "Toronto Police say the deadly shooting — the city’s fourth murder in six days — unfolded just after midnight Saturday at 100 Dundalk Dr., near Kennedy Rd. and Hwy. 401 in Scarborough."

    The 4 murder victims appear to be a diverse (diversity) group. 3 males and 1 female. It appears:

    1) One African Canadian or Caribbean black
    2) One Kenyan
    3) One Tamil
    4) One Somali
    I don’t want to sound like a bigot or racist as I’m the product of immigrant parents. However, this wasn’t happening when Toronto was still predominantly WASPish/European. This is a recent problem and the evidence is there to smack us all in the face yet nobody has the stones to deal with so they want to ban guns or ban knives because that won’t offend anyone and won’t fix the problem. Diversity is not our strength when things like this are allowed to continue happening.

  7. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion1027 View Post
    This is a recent problem and the evidence is there to smack us all in the face
    Apparently, the police don't keep race based statistics (too sensitive for feeble minded people like us). I simply looked at the pics of the deceased and their names to add 2 plus 2 to determine (guess?) their ethnic background.

    I rarely hear of Catholic Filipinos or South Koreans involved in serious crimes. On the other hand, I have heard of East and South Asians committing the "crime" of massaging your balls.

    BTW: When I heard on the radio that the suspect in the first murder was "Lee Ming". I thought he was Chinese which is really unusual. Then I saw his pic and name is spelled "Leigh Ming" and he doesn't appear to be Chinese at all.

  8. #152
    The problem with the "less guns means less shootings" theory is this:

    Let's just say there are 3 million legally owned and registered handguns in Canada. Now let's say there are 100k illegal and not registered handguns. (I'm just making numbers up here).

    If you take away the 3 million legal guns by implementing a 'ban' you now have 'less guns' as law abiding citizens will turn theirs in. Problem is the criminals will not turn theirs in so you still have 100k guns being used to shoot people. So less guns does NOT mean less shootings.

    A 'ban' will not result in 'less' guns in the hands of criminals. They will still get them. One way or another. Recently there was even a bust where the police found that criminals were MAKING their own guns.

    Comparing Canada with the UK or Australia, or Japan, does not work either. We happen to share a HUGE and mostly undefended border with a country that has a MASSIVE amount of firepower. Criminals will always be able to get guns from the US.

    So a 'ban' will only take guns away from law abiding citizens. It's a knee jerk reaction that will make it 'seem' like something is being done, that politicians have 'acted' - 'done something'.

    What my suggestion is - make using a gun in a crime such a huge punishment that it's not worth the risk. Someone using a gun in a crime - 10 years prison no parole. If someone gets hurt as a result of a gun being used in a crime - 20 years. If someone is killed - life with no parole. But of course you can't lock people up - that might hurt their feelings.

  9. #153
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oblivion
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Darts View Post
    Apparently, the police don't keep race based statistics (too sensitive for feeble minded people like us). I simply looked at the pics of the deceased and their names to add 2 plus 2 to determine (guess?) their ethnic background.

    I rarely hear of Catholic Filipinos or South Koreans involved in serious crimes. On the other hand, I have heard of East and South Asians committing the "crime" of massaging your balls.

    BTW: When I heard on the radio that the suspect in the first murder was "Lee Ming". I thought he was Chinese which is really unusual. Then I saw his pic and name is spelled "Leigh Ming" and he doesn't appear to be Chinese at all.
    Ok so you seem to be making observations and implications about who is responsible for the shootings. Don't feel shy about giving solutions if you have any. What laws would you have the politicians change to address your observations.
    dick at largedick at large

  10. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by lomotil View Post
    Don't feel shy about giving solutions if you have any.
    Regarding solutions, I don't have a magic bullet (no pun intended). Any suggestions I have would be ruled unconstitutional and/or racist anyway.

  11. #155
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oblivion
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Darts View Post
    Regarding solutions, I don't have a magic bullet (no pun intended). Any suggestions I have would be ruled unconstitutional and/or racist anyway.
    You mean suggestions, like apartheid, genocide, deportations, forced sterilization or genetic modification ? Yes the constitution would have be changed if you are thinking along those lines.
    dick at largedick at large

  12. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Darts View Post
    Regarding solutions, I don't have a magic bullet (no pun intended). Any suggestions I have would be ruled unconstitutional and/or racist anyway.
    End of discussion. The situation will stay as is or probably get worse. No politician or high up Cop will consider getting serious about the gun problem. They all know what`s really going on, just watch the 6 pm news any day, it can`t all be fake. It would be assured political and or career suicide.

  13. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest4Less View Post
    The problem with the "less guns means less shootings" theory is this:

    Let's just say there are 3 million legally owned and registered handguns in Canada. Now let's say there are 100k illegal and not registered handguns. (I'm just making numbers up here).

    If you take away the 3 million legal guns by implementing a 'ban' you now have 'less guns' as law abiding citizens will turn theirs in. Problem is the criminals will not turn theirs in so you still have 100k guns being used to shoot people. So less guns does NOT mean less shootings.

    A 'ban' will not result in 'less' guns in the hands of criminals. They will still get them. One way or another. Recently there was even a bust where the police found that criminals were MAKING their own guns.

    Comparing Canada with the UK or Australia, or Japan, does not work either. We happen to share a HUGE and mostly undefended border with a country that has a MASSIVE amount of firepower. Criminals will always be able to get guns from the US.

    So a 'ban' will only take guns away from law abiding citizens. It's a knee jerk reaction that will make it 'seem' like something is being done, that politicians have 'acted' - 'done something'.

    What my suggestion is - make using a gun in a crime such a huge punishment that it's not worth the risk. Someone using a gun in a crime - 10 years prison no parole. If someone gets hurt as a result of a gun being used in a crime - 20 years. If someone is killed - life with no parole. But of course you can't lock people up - that might hurt their feelings.
    And that, of course, is the problem. But. You can't use this line of reasoning in out legal system because those mandatory sentences will mostly target minorities. And, as we all know, they're disadvantaged. Paying a hard price for using firearms in a crime would have a benefit. Undoubtedly the criminals would switch to knives, but because of the social justice implications it will never happen
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  14. #158
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oblivion
    Posts
    4,027
    Thugs are out to murder someone, these are targeted hits. Guns are just one method, albeit an expedient one. If they did not access to guns then they would find another way. The risk with the guns in particular is that of civilians getting caught in the crossfire which has not been happening so far.
    dick at largedick at large

  15. #159

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •