Latest Toronto shootout underlines need for tougher gun law

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:39 pm

On every website, there is at least one wienie.
Rockie is a wienie.
Therefore, Rockie is Avcanada's wienie.

Like that argument, Wienie?

ps SYT-YYZ I agree with every word. I think I love you.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:33 pm

xsbank wrote:On every website, there is at least one wienie.
Rockie is a wienie.
Therefore, Rockie is Avcanada's wienie.

Like that argument, Wienie?

ps SYT-YYZ I agree with every word. I think I love you.

Class and wit.

I'm obviously way out of my league.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:59 pm

Rockie wrote:
xsbank wrote:On every website, there is at least one wienie.
Rockie is a wienie.
Therefore, Rockie is Avcanada's wienie.

Like that argument, Wienie?

ps SYT-YYZ I agree with every word. I think I love you.
Class and wit.

I'm obviously way out of my league.

Actually, I take that back and apologize. My earlier post on this thread where I mentioned you was because I actually think gun advocates are not well served by the "logic" you and Hedley shared with us in your post. It shows no thought or willingness to look at both sides of a debate that is much more serious and necessary in this country than I think either of us recognize fully. There are two camps in this debate both with very valid arguments supporting their positions, and I think it is only right and proper that both sides concerns are accomodated with the best compromise that can be hammered out by those responsible.

The other thing that concerns me is that although this forum is anonymous, it is still public. I am at times embarassed at the lowbrow behaviour we (and yes, I include me) exhibit as supposed professionals. If I were a layperson reading this forum I would have a pretty low opinion of those sharp dressed pilots walking through the terminal or the people maintaining the planes.

If that means I'm a wienie, then slap me in a bun and cover me with mustard.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:21 pm

Wise man once said, when you throw dirt, you're losing ground.

Golden Flyer · Post by **Golden Flyer** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:53 pm

SYT-YYZ, I think it's obvious that it's not a gun problem. Politicians use that argument to get votes and make it seem like they're tackling the problem. If it weere still in the caveman era, they'd argue for stone control. Some disgruntled f*ck would kill someone with a stone. As I stated before, the problem is drugs & gangs. Ottawa just cannot hold their own. They're been led by Washington.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:59 pm

I don't know, perhaps I just don't get it, but I was insulted gratuitously so I responded in kind, in a demeaning manner, in a way that was meant to ridicule Rockie in such a way as to point out that I don't get off on being insulted.

He and I have traded insults before and as we don't seem to agree on anything, we are likely to trade insults again. I get exercised when I am trashed, when the object of ridicule is me, not what I say.

For the rest of you lot, don't get all high and mighty over the dirt being tossed on this, the dirt forum. If the casual observer stumbled into this forum and was upset by the twaddle written here, too bad.

I still think all the rhetoric about gun control has been spent and flushed by now. If anyone wants to read the collective thoughts on the subject as written here, use the search function - there's pages of it and its all been said: reactionary, mindless anti-gun Chicken Littles on one side, rabid, callous pro-gun libertarians on the other, both of whom have as little understanding of each other or chance of agreeing as me winning the lottery or you getting shot.

I'm sorry that I called you a wienie, Rocky. I'll save it for the next time we bang heads.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:52 am

People tend to write about things they disagree with. I suspect that you, me and Hedley actually agree on lots and lots of stuff, and that if we spent hours together in a cockpit we would get along just fine. Maybe even have a few spirited beers afterwards. In real life we conduct ourselves differently than we do on an anonymous forum where taking a cheap shot is too easy and instantly gratifying. I'm not about to give my name on here, but if I have anything to say on this forum I will try and do so as if my real name were signed on the bottom.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:19 am

The anti-gun camp is WAY more fanatical than the pro-gun folks! Chew on that fact! Give me gun nuts every time over the crybaby anti-gun idiots! The problem is NOT the guns! A BIG problem is the stinking media! Lets stop giving these morons the attention they so obviously seek??????

niss · Post by **niss** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:22 am

Remember a couple of years ago when the worst we had to worry about was a good old fashioned stabbing?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:30 am

Well, here's an idea to help reduce crime in Toronto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IDImv83rs

I'm not about to give my name on here

Why the fear? Like many others here, I make no attempt to conceal my identity.

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:57 am

Criminals use guns to commit crimes because guns give them power while commiting the crime.

So how do you reduce the 'power effect'? I think the only way to reduce gun crime is to make the criminals do a cost/benefit analysis that forces them to decide not to use a gun. When a criminal commits an armed robbery for example, they see using a gun as a benefit. What if they were made to see the cost outweighed the benefit?

Make the penalty of using a gun while commiting a crime so onerous that they will not use one. How can we do that?

There must be a hard-line change in Canadian law. If criminals use a gun to commit a crime they WILL stay in jail for a very, VERY long time... no parole, no Paris Hilton deals or shenanigans.

If that costs the Canadian taxpayer alot initially to pay for imprisoning criminals until everyone gets the message, I'm willing to pay my share.

(Ducks for cover from the bullets that'll be flying his way)

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:09 am

You want to send a message? Round up the gang leaders. Put a bullet through their heads on the eleven o'clock news....you would only have to do that once! A bullet costs about a buck. Think of the savings to the tax payers!

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:12 am

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

I think this is the problem here. No hard evidence to support either side's claims, just opinions.

LH · Post by LH » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:05 am

There's also another method of dealing with many of these "tough guys".........send them back to the countries they came from and forget about them. Like that idea? If you do then you'll be VERY pleased to hear that the government of Canada hired a private jet to send a violent gang leader back to Somalia. He arrived here when he was 14 and amassed a total of 78 charges to do with violence and all that over a period of 6 years. Why a private jet? His original destination was southern Somalia, but he said that his life would be in danger there so they sent him to northern Somalia, but there were no airline connections. This flight back to Somalia took place at the end of last month and originated in Winnipeg.

The Federal Judge also stated that those gangs whose members are almost all immigrants to Canada, were being "put on notice that we had had enough and that further flights to home countries can be arranged quickly".

Score: Christians 1 - Lions 0.

Next in line!!

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:55 am

Corp jo. Your stance that guns are made for killing is wrong. Guns are made for shooting, which can includes killing. But there are far more rounds fired with no intention to kill than those intended to kill. It is not the gun thats the problem, but you have been told that before, more than once right? I say give everyone a bottle of whiskey and a pound of crack and a pistol and soon we will have a lot more guns that people. It's called survival of the smartest because a tough guy with a gun is easliy nuetralized by a smart person with a gun.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:33 am

Hedley wrote:Well, here's an idea to help reduce crime in Toronto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IDImv83rs

I'm not about to give my name on here
Why the fear? Like many others here, I make no attempt to conceal my identity.

Like many more others here, I value my privacy. It's as simple as that. I think it was CID who said he has given nothing away on this forum regarding his identity or background. I have a great deal of respect for that decision because it requires discipline and a strong sense of privacy to maintain that, and his desire for anonymity in no way detracts from the value of what he says. I also respect your willingness to put your real name under what you write, but knowing your name would not effect my opinion of the things you write here any more than knowing CID's would.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:40 am

MUSKEG wrote:Corp jo. Your stance that guns are made for killing is wrong. Guns are made for shooting, which can includes killing. But there are far more rounds fired with no intention to kill than those intended to kill.

I respectfully disgress. Shooting is how you get a gun to kill. That fact that hunters, soldiers or gangsters can't aim and do more shooting than killing does not change the primary purpose of the gun. I recognize the difference between the types of uses a gun has, and I also recognize the difference between killing a deer and killing a human being and shooting random objects to see how they come apart. The fact that shooting bottles in your backyard is great fun, especially if they're empty whisky bottles that were full before you put them on the fence (which makes it even more fun) does not change the primary reason why the gun was conceived and built.

What you are referring to is a secondary purpose of the gun. There are guns made for shooting, not killing, and they are BB guns (including all their derivatives). The fact of the matter remains, that compared to everything else that kills because of misuse, weapons set themselves apart because of their primary purpose: killing. I was trying to point out that using the argument "object x" kills but we don't ban it, is ridiculous in this debate.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:40 am

Doc wrote:You want to send a message? Round up the gang leaders. Put a bullet through their heads on the eleven o'clock news....you would only have to do that once! A bullet costs about a buck. Think of the savings to the tax payers!

I don't want to comment on your opinion Doc, but these words beside a thoughtful and pensive John F. Kennedy cracks me up.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:23 am

People who obsess about guns are like people who obsess about runny noses. Yes, you can give someone who is sick an antihistamine and treat the symptom of the runny nose, but they are still sick.

And that's what the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand. The misuse of guns is just a symptom of a much greater societal illness. Getting rid of the guns will not cure the illness.

Guns don't worry me. People worry me, because people are dangerous.

Over in Britain, they are trying to ban kitchen knives. Hm. Are kitchen knives dangerous? Only if there are dangerous people around.

Same goes for fertlizer.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:52 am

Hedley wrote:People who obsess about guns are like people who obsess about runny noses. Yes, you can give someone who is sick an antihistamine and treat the symptom of the runny nose, but they are still sick.

And that's what the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand. The misuse of guns is just a symptom of a much greater societal illness. Getting rid of the guns will not cure the illness.

I agree, but does that mean you shouldn't take cold medicine? How about just pain killers because they don't actually cure anything either? How many times do you let your child burn his hand on the stove before you just keep him away from it until he learns for himself?

If you can come up with a cure for the "illness" then I'll vote for you myself. Until then treating the "symptoms" is the next best thing don't you think?

By the way, I don't support banning guns even if it were possible. But I do support restricting their access and registering them and their owners.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:19 pm

Gun laws definitely prevent gun crime, just like the Income Tax Act stops people from cheating on their taxes. Tightening up the gun laws will certainly fix the gun problem.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:21 pm

People use automobiles, trains, and even rivers to support their argument that banning guns because of a few deaths is ridiculous. But not one person brought up banning aircraft; in an aviation board no less. You would think........

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:09 pm

the_professor wrote:Gun laws definitely prevent gun crime, just like the Income Tax Act stops people from cheating on their taxes. Tightening up the gun laws will certainly fix the gun problem.

Let's continue to apply the same logic. Some people drive through red lights, so red lights don't work. Let's stop enforcing traffic laws. As a matter of fact let's get rid of all laws that some people break, including all air regs.

Please, enough with the ridiculous arguments.

The bottom line is that this debate has no hard evidence to support the outcome of a tighter gun law registry (one that actually works) or the effects on society of having unrestricted gun access. We're all guessing.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:35 pm

the_professor wrote:Gun laws definitely prevent gun crime, just like the Income Tax Act stops people from cheating on their taxes. Tightening up the gun laws will certainly fix the gun problem.

Really? Please list the gun control measure put into place in Canada since 1985, and show the effect they've had on gun crimes. C-17 (put in place in 1991) and C-68 (1995) haven't had any demonstable effect on the murder rate. The last bill you could say had a noticable effect on the gun crime rate was C-51 (1977), which placed controls on the sale of ammunition, and required FACs, but you'd still have to demonstrate causation, rather than a corrolation.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:43 pm

Rockie wrote:
Hedley wrote:People who obsess about guns are like people who obsess about runny noses. Yes, you can give someone who is sick an antihistamine and treat the symptom of the runny nose, but they are still sick.

And that's what the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand. The misuse of guns is just a symptom of a much greater societal illness. Getting rid of the guns will not cure the illness.
I agree, but does that mean you shouldn't take cold medicine? How about just pain killers because they don't actually cure anything either? How many times do you let your child burn his hand on the stove before you just keep him away from it until he learns for himself?

Dunno about you, but I learned pretty quick after getting burned once. Maybe your kid is just slow? Anyone who lets their 3 year old play with a rifle is a fool, but this has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with idiot parents.

If you can come up with a cure for the "illness" then I'll vote for you myself. Until then treating the "symptoms" is the next best thing don't you think?

Demonstrate that an increased crime rate is a symptom of widespread lawful gun ownership.