July 23, 2007
Summer of the Gun Continued, New Temple Already Politician Infested, Baggage Thieves Busted
Toronto had a violent weekend with nine people shot and four of them killed, including an 11-year-old boy at a birthday party. Two more people were stabbed. Cue relatives wailing, Police Chief Bill Blair saying "this is unacceptable," and headlines like "Saturday Night Bloodbath." We’ve seen all this before. Solutions, anyone?
On Sunday, about 8,000 people attended the opening of the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, a spectacular 94,000 square foot Hindu temple near Finch and the 427. The temple was hand-carved in India and then constructed by volunteers in Toronto over an 18-month period. Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, and Dalton McGuinty all showed up to court the Hindu vote and compete for the coveted title of "Multiculturalist of the Year."
Eleven people were arrested and charged with drug trafficking and theft in the break-up of a "criminal network" at Pearson Airport. Superintendent Ron Allen of the Toronto Airport drug enforcement unit is quoted as saying police are aware that other criminal groups are operating out of the airport. Hey, they should arrest them too!
Argentina beat the Czech Republic 2–1 to take the gold at the FIFA Under-20 World Cup. The final was entirely pepper spray-free.
Photo by jcterminal from Torontoist Flickr Pool.
|
How many consecutive "Summers of the Gun" can the city have? I mean, really.
"summer gunnin'
happened so fast,
summer gunnin'
had me a blast"
Trash the current "understanding" of the charter of rights that mandates 2x credit for pre-sentence custody, requires ultra short sentences, lets DANGEROUS OFFENDERS get a parole hearing within 7 years.
Life w/o parole for break & enter (an exceptionally violent crime that frequently leads to murders and rapes) and anything more serious. It's rather hard to kill people in your housing project when you're in jail for life with no chance of parole. Nearly all of the shooters have VERY long rap sheets, and most of their intended victims do too. Give draconian sentences to adult criminals, and give custodial sentences to 2 time youth offenders, and you don't have these problems.
Unfortunately our judges now claim that anything less than 25 strikes before you go to jail for 3 months is unconstitutional.
Who is going to pay for these prisons, the prison guards, the judges, the Crown Attorneys, the clerks*, the new correctional facilities, the food, the clothing, the health care, the transportation, the police officers to catch these offenders, and finally Legal Aid Ontario's increased budget as these cases are appealed due to unconstitutionality? That's...that's...jeez, at least several billion dollars more for the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the Ministry of the Attorney General, and various police forces throughout the province.
We're talking about either dramatically raising taxes, or cutting Health and Education spending by 1/3 [never mind the sheer axe jobs for Community and Social Services, Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, Northern Development, Natural Resources, Aboriginal Affairs (and settlements with First Nations), and Environment].
* Clerks are needed for courts. Also, add additional staff at both Justice Ministries.
B&E is a violent crime?
i think the guest meant b&e as home invasion. i was going to be all prison abolitionist but you know what? the money argument is shocking enough - these are issues that definitely need to be dealt with, but a disproportionate enforcement of harsh sentencing for the crimes committed [c'mon, break and enter? assault? attempted murder? negligent homicide due to drunk driving?] is not going to work. prevention is the key. and it's way cheaper.
This is probably the wrong crowd for this idea, but how about we let law-abiding citizens own guns?
These poster children for retroactive abortion may think twice about whipping out their piece in a crowded intersection on Boxing Day if they know the crowd will shoot back.
It's much cheaper than prisons too.
Can you produce any statistics to show that guns prevent more crimes than they are involved in, or stop more criminals than harm innocent bystanders?
It sounds snarky, but I'm serious too.
There are no legitimate arguments in favour of gun control, unless you're one of those liberal types who believes in things like "facts" and "scientific studies."
The crime iceberg. People look at crime as a problem that begins when the crime has been committed and ends with the incarceration of the perp. Beneath the surface is the other 7/8ths of the problem that no one wants to deal with. Andrew hit it when he said prevention. As far as arming the public. People like to think they could be "Dirty Harry". I have a permit and have owned pistols. I took a couple of safety/defense courses and we covered the laws pertaining to home or self defense. It may sound heroic and make for a great news story, but an ordinary citizen who shoots someone is in for all kinds of criminal and civil liabilty. You don't just shoot them, claim self-defense and watch yourself on the news. You're in for a long ride in court and alot of lawyer fees.
If you shoot it, you own it.
One of the most important things is to release the grip the gangs have on neighbourhoods—much of which involves removing this idiotic "no snitching" culture and lack of co-operation with the police. That can only happen when the communities get mobilized and act en masse. Unfortunately, fear is the greatest disestablishing force.
That forum Marc posted made me really pissed off.
What a waste of oxygen. Gangs? Really? What is this, 1955? Kids can't find anything better to do?
Oh, wait...
This topic has pretty much been buried already, but I'll go along.
Wikipedia cites that no state that has passed concealed carry laws has repealed them. Since that in itself is not an ringing endorsement (see Friedman's "Tyranny of the Status Quo") it also cites another researcher saying "Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem."
In short: anti-gun laws don't work, because criminals don't obey the law (shock! awe!).
So those 'snarky' liberals who believe in things like 'studies' and 'facts' had best check them before they open their traps.
In terms of self-defense law, you're right that common law cases have tended to side with the criminal rather than the one defending him/herself against them. That doesn't change the fact that obeying a bad law makes you complicit in the death it causes.
It's not an endorsement at all. Plenty of jurisdictions have laws on the books that make no sense by today's standards, but did for one reason or another when passed a century or more ago.
Criminals aren't the only ones who shoot people, and not all shootings are intentional. In Canada between 1990 and 1996 43% of all non-natural deaths of children under 15 were unintentional shootings. (Source: CDC - Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearms-Related Among Children in 26 Industrialized Countries. Canadian Firearm Centre also breaks it down here.)
The problem with gun control laws is that it usually ends there. You're right, criminals don't obey the laws: they buy guns that have been stolen or smuggled in. That doesn't mean, however, that gun control laws should be overturned for 'failure' -- they reduce the number of guns that are available to be stolen, and protect countless individuals from unintentional and heat of the moment shootings.
Something should also be said for the overall willingness of people to kill each other. Most of the industrialized world combined doesn't kill at the rate the US manages. The above-linked study found that the number of child homicides in the US outnumbered the remaining 25 nations combined. Hell, compare Canada's total homicide figure for 1995 with that of just New York City: we killed about 100 more people than them, but in a population more than 3.5 times the size. If I feared my neighbours the way Americans must, I'd probably want a gun too. However, instead of repealling gun control laws, more should be done to stop people from seeing homicide and violence as an acceptable solution.
If obeying a bad law makes you complicit (I assume the reasoning is as follows: It's illegal to own a gun, so I don't; if someone dies because I had no firearm to use preventively, I have helped kill them) then what does it mean if you use your legal gun to kill someone unintentionally or unlawfully? What about when your nephew finds your gun and kills himself by accident? Dead is dead; your permit won't change it or get you off the hook. So I don't think this is the right place for NRA-issued rhetoric, do you?
(And if courts are tending to side with the victims of the shooting, even if they were in the middle of breaking the law, doesn't that chuck the "armed citizens maintain order and liberty" argument right out the window?)
I have yet to see any studies posted in these on-line debates about gun ownership proving to be a deterrent against violent crime in which a gun was used - as in, 'hey, that guy is threatening people with a gun, i'm going to pull out my legally-concealed piece and shoot him!' although people talk about it a lot. A lot, a lot, a lot. But I just can't fathom, beyond the obvious adrenaline rush people must experience writing about this fantasy, how rational adults who know how to operate a motor vehicle or can do basic arithematic haven't the capacity to think this one through. Let's use the example of the most recent death by pistolero, the 11 year-old shot on the weekend. So, you with your carry-conceal permit and your legal piece of iron, you're there. Having fun at the party, not drinking maybe because you're driving someone home, and suddenly you notice a couple of the local drug dealers at the party giving each other cut-eye. You mean to tell me that you're willing to whip it out [ha, pun intended] and let blast at the slightest malignant move of theirs? Brrrrap brrrap brrrrap, just like that? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FRIGGEN CHILDREN AT THE PARTY THAT YOU STAND A CHANCE OF SHOOTING?!! The situations wherein these shootings take place are not ones that adding more firearms and slugs in the air are going to help. You're just adding to the potential for more bodies on the ground, chalk outlines and such.
I know it's so erotic to imagine yourself in Norm Gardiner's shoes, but learn to be an adult. Take a CPR course and save the life of someone who gets shot, don't buy a weapon and try to take one.
Sorry I'm two days late commenting on this, but no one brought up the point. The new Hindu temple is pretty spectacular and on a par with, a century or two ago, hosting one of the largest and most fantastic cathedrals. The problem is that while St. James and its peers are downtown, this incredible campus sits hard by the 427 in an industrial wasteland. It's a rather sad commentary on the Indian community being rather blunt about where their worshippers live, which is in the car-dependent western suburbs, and they're perfectly fine if the rest of the city gets nothing other than a glance as they whiz by. It's a true shame and a black mark on Miller and McGuinty that once the city and province got wind of this construction (the 6th largest temple outside India) they didn't pull BAPS aside and try to work something out with some derelict but more attractively and centrally located government land on the waterfront, near a park or at least with rapid transit access. What a postcard-pretty view (and great exposure to multiculturalism) it would have been for tourists to stumble across this gleaming stone temple on the portlands, or facing Downsview Park, or on the Etobicoke waterfront... What future does a city have if its urban icons are scattered at the periphery?
How about strict enforcement, sentencing, etc. AND prevention. One does not have to be mutually exclusive of the other.