|
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Edo
(Post 12539106)
Bill C-42?
Quoting from that: 2015 On June 18, Bill C-42,the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, received royal assent, and the following provisions of that Act came into force: The Act amended theFirearms Act and Criminal Code to make classroom participation in firearms safety courses mandatory for first-time licence applicants; provide for the discretionary authority of Chief Firearms Officers to be subject to the regulations; strengthen the Criminal Code provisions relating to orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where a person is convicted of an offence involving domestic violence; and, provide the Governor in Council with the authority to prescribe firearms to be non-restricted or restricted. On September 2, two additional provisions of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act came into force: the elimination of the Possession Only Licence (POL) and conversion of all existing POLs to Possession and Acquisition Licences; and the Authorization to Transport becoming a condition of a licence for certain routine and lawful activities. Other provisions of the Act which create a six month grace period at the end of a five year licence, and permitting the sharing of firearms import information when restricted and prohibited firearms are imported into Canada by businesses, are not yet in force. How did that make it easier? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Stop letting criminals and mental people who threaten to kill people out on the streets would be a start. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12539178)
Stop letting criminals and mental people who threaten to kill people out on the streets would be a start. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12539193)
Well, yes, I think we can all agree that, in the instance that someone is incarcerated and they make credible threats to others and they are, in the opinion of the experts, mental ill in such a way as to make them dangerous, it would be better if they were not released. I'm glad that's settled.
|
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12539199)
It’s a shame the Gov thinks differently |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Seems most of the recent mass shooters in the US were not on anyones radar and had not done anything prior to make it onto anyones radar.
While the individual in Toronto was known to have mental health issues is it known if he had told anyone recently of his thoughts and plans? If not how would anyone know to place him in a long term facility? For those who study mass shootings and shooters the conseus seems to be they are difficult to predict and a masd shooter is not necessairly mentally ill. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12539426)
is it known if he had told anyone recently of his thoughts and plans?
https://globalnews.ca/news/4352671/d...rk-collegiate/ |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12539426)
For those who study mass shootings and shooters the conseus seems to be they are difficult to predict and a masd shooter is not necessairly mentally ill.
And, yes, I know that gun control doesn't address rogue drivers, mass poisonings or aircraft hijacking. It's not a panacea. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Is this how society should move forward DBD. Remove things that are not necessary. Cars that do more than 100kmh, pleasure boats, fishing rods for people who throw the fish back? Golf and other useless sports. Should we use the same reasoning in everything we do or don’t do? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12539439)
Is this how society should move forward DBD. Remove things that are not necessary. Cars that do more than 100kmh, pleasure boats, fishing rods for people who throw the fish back? Golf and other useless sports. Should we use the same reasoning in everything we do or don’t do? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 12539441)
Apart from golf, none of those things is a pestilence on the rest of society.
|
Re: Toronto Shooting
From random people being gunned down and the sadness of it........ to golf.
I shouldn't be surprised really should I, lol. :D |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Siouxie
(Post 12539464)
From random people being gunned down and the sadness of it........ to golf.
I shouldn't be surprised really should I, lol. :D |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12539439)
Is this how society should move forward DBD. Remove things that are not necessary. Cars that do more than 100kmh, pleasure boats, fishing rods for people who throw the fish back? Golf and other useless sports. Should we use the same reasoning in everything we do or don’t do? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
well Toronto voted to ban hand guns overwhelmingly so a up and coming criminal/mass shooter will will be unable to go and apply for a gun licence and after extensive checks buy his weapon of choice and register it. Because they will be banned |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12539507)
well Toronto voted to ban hand guns overwhelmingly so a up and coming criminal/mass shooter will will not be unable to go and apply for a gun licence and after extensive checks buy his weapon of choice and register it. Because they will be banned My criterion for banning items/activities, btw, is that unless something causes direct harm to people who have not chosen to participate there's no reason to ban it. Hand guns and automatic weapons, existing as they do to cause direct harm, are a reasonable thing to ban. Golf, while an activity for people who are a blight on society, is on the cusp - it's a stretch to argue that poisoning the ground, dressing badly and buying old man cars is directly harmful to others. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
There is no end to these shootings, it’s a daily thing now. Banning legal gun owners appears to be the way the Gov are going ahead to fix this. Bigger sentences and no leniency on illegal gun carry would be a better Route |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12556197)
There is no end to these shootings, it’s a daily thing now. Banning legal gun owners appears to be the way the Gov are going ahead to fix this. Bigger sentences and no leniency on illegal gun carry would be a better Route As to the banning of citizens having hand guns and assault rifles, I am sympathetic to this argument. On a personal note, I am aware of very limited legitimate reasons for anyone to have access to such firearms other than law enforcement agencies and the military. ​​ |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by macadian
(Post 12556234)
Agreed, but the sensible remedies you allude to would be so objectionable to our more liberal minded citizens....if we can rehabilitate (according to selfie boy) terrorists, of the isis persuasion why not the perpetrators of gun related crime?
As to the banning of citizens having hand guns and assault rifles, I am sympathetic to this argument. On a personal note, I am aware of very limited legitimate reasons for anyone to have access to such firearms other than law enforcement agencies and the military. ​​ When did it become legal to carry a handgun in Ontario? It wasn't when I got my license and, at that time, although there were more legally held machine guns and assault rifles in Canada than in the US, they were all grandfathered. No new permits were being issued. All this talk of banning is nonsense, they're already banned. Of course, it doesn't matter what's banned in Canada when there's an open border with the US so the route to reducing gun crime in Toronto is to reduce the influence of the NRA, elect Democrats, introduce gun control in the US and wait 100 years. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12556289)
Of course, it doesn't matter what's banned in Canada when there's an open border with the US so the route to reducing gun crime in Toronto is to reduce the influence of the NRA, elect Democrats, introduce gun control in the US and wait 100 years.
|
Re: Toronto Shooting
I am sure there is some sort of solution, however not sure if long prison terms are the answer. Look south of the border and you can easily see what happens when harsh long sentences take place, government ends up with massive bills related to prisons and overcrowded prisons to a point courts have had to intervene and force states to release prisoners to reduce overcrowding.
|
Re: Toronto Shooting
Of course, it doesn't matter what's banned in Canada when there's an open border with the US so the route to reducing gun crime in Toronto is to reduce the influence of the NRA, elect Democrats, introduce gun control in the US and wait 100 years.
That's quite a self-centred viewpoint - you cheerfully propose interfering in the domestic affairs of a neighbouring country, rather than the bleeding obvious - better enforcement of (existing) Canadian laws, within Canada, by Canada. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by tooboocoo
(Post 12556494)
Of course, it doesn't matter what's banned in Canada when there's an open border with the US so the route to reducing gun crime in Toronto is to reduce the influence of the NRA, elect Democrats, introduce gun control in the US and wait 100 years.
That's quite a self-centred viewpoint - you cheerfully propose interfering in the domestic affairs of a neighbouring country, rather than the bleeding obvious - better enforcement of (existing) Canadian laws, within Canada, by Canada. One could argue that the US takes a self-centered view in maintaining a state of domestic anarchy as that inevitably causes problems for other countries. The US position on the gun issue, being unique in the world, is plainly unsound. The best one can say for it is that Americans killing their schoolchildren is, perhaps, their own business if they can keep it to their own schoolchildren. They don't though. On this issue the US is the dangerous dog owner who won't buy a fence. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Canada isn't an independent country but a subsidiary state, something like Scotland, Wales or NI. Bizarre, and news to a lot of people, I suspect... or is that supposed to be some kind of wry thigh-slapper?
Of course the people of Canada should try to influence decisions that directly affect their lives. So you'd be equally relaxed about Americans "influencing" the political process in Canada, purely for their own benefit? ... if they can keep it to their own schoolchildren. They don't though. I really shake my head at the casualness with which you say the most incendiary things. "They" are known for killing schoolchildren in other countries, really? Please provide one example. One could argue what you do, but it's a weak argument. A dog is known to act independently and instinctively, sometimes with violence; inanimate objects such as guns are not. The dog owner is very reasonably expected to foresee possible harm occasioned by his/her dog. Yet you expect Americans to be responsible for the illegal actions of Canadians. Surely that's a matter for Canadian law-enforcement? Or would better/more enforcement somehow require a bit of backbone (and funding)? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by tooboocoo
(Post 12556559)
Canada isn't an independent country but a subsidiary state, something like Scotland, Wales or NI. Bizarre, and news to a lot of people, I suspect... or is that supposed to be some kind of wry thigh-slapper?
Of course the people of Canada should try to influence decisions that directly affect their lives. So you'd be equally relaxed about Americans "influencing" the political process in Canada, purely for their own benefit? ... if they can keep it to their own schoolchildren. They don't though. I really shake my head at the casualness with which you say the most incendiary things. "They" are known for killing schoolchildren in other countries, really? Please provide one example. One could argue what you do, but it's a weak argument. A dog is known to act independently and instinctively, sometimes with violence; inanimate objects such as guns are not. The dog owner is very reasonably expected to foresee possible harm occasioned by his/her dog. Yet you expect Americans to be responsible for the illegal actions of Canadians. Surely that's a matter for Canadian law-enforcement? Or would better/more enforcement somehow require a bit of backbone (and funding)? Canadian law enforcement is acting at least as effectively in this regard as US law enforcement. If guns are widely distributed among random people, something only the US supports, then people will inevitably been killed by them as that's what they're for. If the rabid dog analogy is too far fetched for you then I suggest that the US acts toward Canada as Colombia does to the US; cocaine does not shove itself up the noses of Americans, it's inanimate. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Mid afternoon what the F does this city look like https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...olice-say.html |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12556710)
|
Re: Toronto Shooting
Shots fired in Ajax today, two cars shooting at each other Ugh !!! Now I am pissed !!! |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Shooting/murder happened yesterday evening not too far from where we are.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/09/...ildren-police/ It was the fourth fatal shooting yesterday in the GTA. https://torontosun.com/news/local-ne...s-being-sought |
Re: Toronto Shooting
How about, for a start:- having an unregistered handgun in your possession. 10 years in jail, no parole firing an unregistered handgun. 15 years in jail, no parole firing an unregistered handgun injuring someone. 20 years to life in jail, no parole killing someone with unregistered handgun. Full life term in jail, no possibility of parole |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by plasticcanuck
(Post 12558274)
How about, for a start:- having an unregistered handgun in your possession. 10 years in jail, no parole firing an unregistered handgun. 15 years in jail, no parole firing an unregistered handgun injuring someone. 20 years to life in jail, no parole killing someone with unregistered handgun. Full life term in jail, no possibility of parole dream oncehh |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by plasticcanuck
(Post 12558274)
How about, for a start:- having an unregistered handgun in your possession. 10 years in jail, no parole firing an unregistered handgun. 15 years in jail, no parole firing an unregistered handgun injuring someone. 20 years to life in jail, no parole killing someone with unregistered handgun. Full life term in jail, no possibility of parole |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12558397)
This approach is so short sighted that we might call it Thatcheresque.
|
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12558397)
The "unregistered" seems an unnecessary qualification, what would the penalty be if the gun was registered? And then there's are the problems of how to fund a large prison population and what happens when the prisoners are released. This approach is so short sighted that we might call it Thatcheresque.
You said my comments were Thatcheresque. I don’t quite understand this except perhaps that you’re suggesting my thoughts on the matter are much too tough. IMO, we must get these criminals to think twice before buying and carrying illegal handguns. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with the situation? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Besides larger prison costs, do longer sentences reduce crime by a significant amount? Are they useful?
They sound good on paper and in the media and it will win elections, but do long sentences work in reality? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12558541)
Besides larger prison costs, do longer sentences reduce crime by a significant amount? Are they useful?
They sound good on paper and in the media and it will win elections, but do long sentences work in reality? As someone that was once a prison officer I can tell you that the same people kept coming back time after time. At least until they hit their mid thirties to early forties. It appeared that, until such an age, they saw prison as an occupational hazard as they believed that crime was the only way they could get what they wanted. However, upon reaching such an age, it appeared to dawn on them just how much time they had "lost" and, at that time, they had additional motivation to make a change. The more "humane" the conditions inside prison, the more it costs to keep them there. The more humane, the less the incentive to avoid returning. I don't know what the answer is, but I am confident that politicians don't have the answers either. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by plasticcanuck
(Post 12558532)
There are already laws in place for persons with and illegally using registered firearms. The problems with shootings in the GTA is that probably all firearms used are unregistered, so are in the hands of thugs and killers. I don't see this at all. I think the problem with the shootings in the GTA is that people get shot. The status of the weapons used is neither here nor there, people would be no less shot if the guns were registered.
Originally Posted by plasticcanuck
(Post 12558532)
You said my comments were Thatcheresque. I don’t quite understand this
Originally Posted by plasticcanuck
(Post 12558532)
Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with the situation? I'm speculating here but I suppose much of the gun violence to be profit driven and related to the drug trade; the answer to that is simple enough, end the drug prohibition, tax the drugs. If deried, use the tax revenue to lock up the remaining shooters. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12558541)
Besides larger prison costs, do longer sentences reduce crime by a significant amount? Are they useful?
, They sound good on paper and in the media and it will win elections, but do long sentences work in reality? |
Re: Toronto Shooting
Originally Posted by plasticcanuck
(Post 12558601)
There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics. Society must stop mollycoddling violent criminals. They must be taken off the streets regardless of whether or not it reduces crime. At least while locked up they won’t be adding to statistics. If you know a better way to deal with them I’d like to hear it. For the most part these thugs cannot be educated or retrained. Many of them are just bad people who have no place in a civilized society. |
Re: Toronto Shooting
There was a statistical analysis done by some research group a few years ago in Britain.
It showed that the longer the incarceration, the less likely to reoffend. Long sentences seem beneficial as a whole to me. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 4:21 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.