Toronto shootings
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
Thanks, Phil. That was definitely more informative than anything that anyone else posted.I'm too lazy to look it up, but I know for sure from reading the news the vast majority of murders in Chicago are committed by firearms every year
It's illegal to sell or distribute guns in Chicago. Long rifles are legal however
Chicago has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons.
City residents can own firearms but with several conditions: You must be 21 years old and possess a firearm owner's identification (FOID) card and concealed carry license, both issued by Illinois State Police.
Prior to getting a concealed carry license, residents must complete a 16-hour training course, which includes a gun range test that residents must pass, as well as coursework on gun safety. They are also subject to a background check and must pay a $150 application fee. Applicants may be denied a concealed carry license, or have law enforcement agencies object to their applications, if they have particular criminal convictions.
Those who keep guns in the home must hold only a valid FOID card. Gun owners who carry a firearm outside the home must have an FOID and a concealed carry permit
I dont know for sure, but I dont think so
That was added by the author as a joke
Listen, the original question was how to decrease the amount of shootings because it is increasing and people are concerned.
So my point is/was that shootings are caused by guns, ergo if there are no guns there could be no shootings. That point is 100% irrefutable, there is no flaw whatsoever in that logic, but incredibly, nobody could bring themselves to admit that. (There were one or two.) All I got was a bunch of mumbo jumbo based on gut instinct and conjecture and opinion, which I imagine is mostly brought about by bias.
If you notice, I never called for this to be implemented, or how to implement it. It was a very simple, albeit theoretical, answer to the question at hand. All I kept doing was asking questions, asking people to back up their claims with some facts (which, thanks again, YOU did). Nobody had anything concrete, just theories about why it would make no difference, but nothing definitive, that people could prove. The fact that I would legitimately question the validity of their claims and they could not, infuriated them and I knew it would. It was fun to watch. Maybe I was trolling a bit.
So once again, I am not proposing this to happen or suggesting how, or even pretended that I could back it up with facts, because I know it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to do that (and admitted so very early). All I was trying to do was to get the gun proponents to be realistic adults and admit that THE SAME IS TRUE for their side of the argument. Instead I got called names. I can't PROVE my point, but to deny that a dramatic decrease in the availability of guns would decrease the number of shootings is folly that defies logic. Less guns=less shootings, just as less cars=less traffic. Even lomotil agreed with me.
Go ahead guys and knock yourselves out (it is less harmful than shooting yourselves). I will probably no longer respond, unless it is a particularly insightful post, as yours was.
By the way, I knew it was a joke and thought it was a good one.
But you can never get rid of all guns, just as you can never get rid of all drugs.So my point is/was that shootings are caused by guns, ergo if there are no guns there could be no shootings. That point is 100% irrefutable, there is no flaw whatsoever in that logic
(Hard) drugs have been illegal since day 1 and the country is overflowing with drugs.
I think carding might be a good idea to bring back, at least gangbangers will think twice before stepping out with a gun
Are you really that naive to think that by blanket banning handguns we would have no more shootings? As the article stated, in 2018 there were over 500 handguns recovered by Toronto Police and 51 deaths were caused by shooting. How many of those guns do you think were legally owned handguns? I'm going to take a guess and say <1%. Which means a handgun ban would have caused 5 less handguns recovered and 0.5 less shooting deaths.Thanks, Phil. That was definitely more informative than anything that anyone else posted.
Listen, the original question was how to decrease the amount of shootings because it is increasing and people are concerned.
So my point is/was that shootings are caused by guns, ergo if there are no guns there could be no shootings. That point is 100% irrefutable, there is no flaw whatsoever in that logic, but incredibly, nobody could bring themselves to admit that. (There were one or two.) All I got was a bunch of mumbo jumbo based on gut instinct and conjecture and opinion, which I imagine is mostly brought about by bias.
If you notice, I never called for this to be implemented, or how to implement it. It was a very simple, albeit theoretical, answer to the question at hand. All I kept doing was asking questions, asking people to back up their claims with some facts (which, thanks again, YOU did). Nobody had anything concrete, just theories about why it would make no difference, but nothing definitive, that people could prove. The fact that I would legitimately question the validity of their claims and they could not, infuriated them and I knew it would. It was fun to watch. Maybe I was trolling a bit.
So once again, I am not proposing this to happen or suggesting how, or even pretended that I could back it up with facts, because I know it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to do that (and admitted so very early). All I was trying to do was to get the gun proponents to be realistic adults and admit that THE SAME IS TRUE for their side of the argument. Instead I got called names. I can't PROVE my point, but to deny that a dramatic decrease in the availability of guns would decrease the number of shootings is folly that defies logic. Less guns=less shootings, just as less cars=less traffic. Even lomotil agreed with me.
Go ahead guys and knock yourselves out (it is less harmful than shooting yourselves). I will probably no longer respond, unless it is a particularly insightful post, as yours was.
By the way, I knew it was a joke and thought it was a good one.
I said my point was theoretical and that it cannot be proved or disproved until it is tried. Hence, neither side can PROVE their point until then.But you can never get rid of all guns, just as you can never get rid of all drugs.
(Hard) drugs have been illegal since day 1 and the country is overflowing with drugs.
I think carding might be a good idea to bring back, at least gangbangers will think twice before stepping out with a gun
I agree that carding and extremely severe penalties and other measures are required along with decreasing access to guns.
I asked exactly the same kinds of questions.How many of those guns do you think were legally owned handguns? I'm going to take a guess and say <1%.
I am glad to see that, like lomotil, you are helping me. All you can do is take totally wild guesses. You have zero proof. As you have clearly admitted right here, all you can do is guess. That is what I have been saying all along. It is 100% conjecture. I'm glad that at least some guys agree with me.
I wouldn't say they are wild guesses. There is empirical fact that the vast majority of shootings are done with an illegal firearm.I asked exactly the same kinds of questions.
I am glad to see that, like lomotil, you are helping me. All you can do is take totally wild guesses. You have zero proof. As you have clearly admitted right here, all you can do is guess. That is what I have been saying all along. It is 100% conjecture. I'm glad that at least some guys agree with me.
Are you smoking crack again? I'm being serious.I gotta stop, but guys like KD just make it too easy.
What the US and Canada shouldve done 200 years ago was make handguns illegal but long rifles legal so people could still hunt and stuff. But its too late now, the cat is out of the bag and you cannot get it back in.
Soon 3D printing of guns will become the next big thing and then all bets are off
Soon 3D printing of guns will become the next big thing and then all bets are off
Yeah, if only.What the US and Canada shouldve done 200 years ago was make handguns illegal but long rifles legal so people could still hunt and stuff. But its too late now, the cat is out of the bag and you cannot get it back in.
And right across the city line there are far less restrictions.Have a look at this, shack. Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the US...
On the first part I have a fairly good understanding. It's not my job but I know the basics.You fail to understand Canadian gun laws and how illegal guns find their way into Canada.....
On the second, it seems even the experts are unsure. That is why I mentioned ballistic testing as a way of better track their origins.
What will happen is that the gangbangers will auto correct the carnage as they fight for turf. LE and the politicians can do very little to stop the shootings unless they are willing to seriously infringe on the civil liberties of many to catch a few, which is something that will not happen. The legalization of cannabis has caused the bottom feeders of the formerly illicit cannabis trade scrambling to establish themselves in other illicit drug markets at a very very local level which is contributing to the increase in Toronto shootings.
There are concrete stats and facts.So it has never been tried and you have no concrete stats or facts. No prob.
You're just too lazy to look, proving what I've stated earlier.
Your ignorance is rivaled by your laziness.
You're also very dense. Throughout the entire thread, you want to be spoon fed.
Despite the FACTS that neither the Liberal nor Conservative government and top law enforcement officers do not support a ban, you still think it's a good idea.
Why should anyone take you seriously when you have no idea what you're talking about?
:yawn:There are concrete stats and facts.
You're just too lazy to look, proving what I've stated earlier.
Your ignorance is rivaled by your laziness.
Try being in Florida and listening to the news the things you hear are astonishing compared to anywhere in Canada.
Your simple minded suggestion just might happen as heavy pressure is on the politicians to make a lip service knee jerk move. Even with your plan, another record year may be in the cards. If a " Jane Creeba " type incident happens then the pitch forks will come out.:yawn:
Quite possible.Your simple minded suggestion just might happen as heavy pressure is on the politicians to make a lip service knee jerk move. Even with your plan, another record year may be in the cards. If a " Jane Creeba " type incident happens then the pitch forks will come out.
