Boxing Day Shoot out

[modarnis]

No, I

In the Study, my life experiences are equal to all other posters. My opinions and points of view share equal merit with all of our colleagues here.

While I agree everyone's opinions are deserving of equal merit, the first sentence is an impossibility at best. I am interested at how you deduce your life experiences are equal to hundreds of people from differeing geographic, socioeconomic, educational, ethnic, racial, employment, political, and otherwise individual backgrounds

 

[michaeledward]

While I agree everyone's opinions are deserving of equal merit, the first sentence is an impossibility at best. I am interested at how you deduce your life experiences are equal to hundreds of people from differeing geographic, socioeconomic, educational, ethnic, racial, employment, political, and otherwise individual backgrounds

A fair statement from you and a poor statement from me. Let me attempt to clarify (sorry, Lisa, for all this thread gank).

In the Study, each of our unique life experiences can be used with equal weight when proposing an argument. The positions we come to are based from our life's experience. We can then debate and argue the merits of positions based on reason and logic (hopefully).

On occassion, we see someone with less life experience (say, a teenager) put forth a position, and be attacked based on their lack of life experience. Here in the Study, that is an unfair argument (I may even be guilty of that argument - although I hope not).

In other areas on this discussion board, our unique life experiences should not be considered equally weighted for discussion. As a Brown Belt in American Kenpo, I have some knowledge, but my knowledge and experience should not be given equal weight with some of the more senior students of the art. This is not to intimate that I can't contribute to a discussion, but that my more limited experience should weight appropriately on my comments.

The statement you question, was an attempt to acknowledge the difference between contributing in the Study and other areas of Martialtalk.

Mike

 

[Flatlander]

It's interesting how the numbers get spun. Toronto is, per capita, a less likely place to be a homicide victim than Lisa's town or mine. According to Stats Canada, Toronto's 2004 homicide rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. Winnipeg's was 4.9, Regina's was 5.0. But, people don't look at relative stats now, do they? Particularly when they're trying to spin the problem into a campaign issue. With approximately 2.48 million population in the city of Toronto proper (source), and around 5 million in the Greater Toronto Area (or 15% of the Canadian population), there are going to be more aggregrate homicides and gun crimes than in smaller regions. But your relative chances of being a victim there are quite small compared to other regions.

This year, Toronto's homicide rate has increased significantly. According to the article I posted upthread, there have been 74 homicides this year so far. Using the population from the City of Toronto proper, that equates to about 2.98 per 100,000. Up, but still only 60% of the Winnipeg number from last year.

How do we fix the issue? Beats me. Why do people shoot each other?

 

[Kreth]

It's a slippery slope. Anti-gun politicians play on fear to ram through more restrictive laws. Of course, the criminals aren't exactly lining up to hand in their weapons. So next, we need legislation to restrict sales or manufacturing. If that doesn't work, then by God we'd better ban those violent video games that the criminals are using to train with...

 

[Lisa]

It's a slippery slope. Anti-gun politicians play on fear to ram through more restrictive laws. Of course, the criminals aren't exactly lining up to hand in their weapons. So next, we need legislation to restrict sales or manufacturing. If that doesn't work, then by God we'd better ban those violent video games that the criminals are using to train with...

I, personally, don't have a problem with restrictive laws, but I want laws that affect those that use the guns illegally and I want laws that will be enforced, not pleaded out. If our illegal firearms are coming in from the United States then we need better border control to protect both our countries. Politicians pointing fingers at our neighbours isn't going to solve the issue. You are right Kreth, it is a slippery slope..

 

[jdinca]

There weren't too many crashing airplane jokes on September 12, were there?

Little different situation, don't you think? Several thousand deaths from 54 different countries in one vicious attack v. a senseless shoot out where a few innocent lives were lost. They're in the same category and I'm not trying to trivialize the loss in Toronto but that's like comparing a .22 to a bazooka.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich Parsons, of course your opinion has weight. I tried to point out that it lacked in tact. I never thought it would expand to a half a dozen postings.

There weren't too many crashing airplane jokes on September 12, were there?

Toronto, for many years, has billed itself as the Safest Big City in North America. Around it, across North America, gang violence, and gun violence have spead, while it had remained relatively non-violent. What is it that we call 'moving from high density to low density', osmosis? The rise of gang activity comes late to Toronto, which is why I described it as coming from 'across the water'. It was an oasis of low-violence. Not any longer.

Actually to be honest, tact is relative, and in this case it was your opinion.

As to jokes about airplanes crashing:

** Rich walking out of a meeting that morning

Another Engineer: Well I guess since Rich is here, it could not have been him who flew the plane into the tower.

Later that day from an upset blonde hair blue male at a gas station while I was trying to walk in to pay for gas.

** said to the store owner born in the USA ** Why the **** do you not all go back to your own countries!

** Turns to me

Well? How about you why don't you go home as well?

I smiled and said, "White man, I am native American Indian. Go home white man, give me back my country and my land."

His wife yelled at him to shut and get in the car.

Now, I did not attack or make remarks about people who should have defended themselves. I made references to political issues, in a thread where political issues are discussed in the forum.

I would have expected from you, and not for this to be continued, but as usual you cannot admit you were wrong, or mistaken, or that anyone else has a point of view other than your own. Grow up and get over it, and quit trying to tell me how to behave, for if not I will tell you how to behave. For I expected much more out of someone who posts so often in study. Yet, it did not happen. So, just let it drop, and stay on topic of the thread or report my posts, and explain why it should be reviewed. I have no problem with that occuring, our policies are in place where others review the posts, and decide if they are across the line.

The real ironic thing is that I used irony, and you took offense at it.

 

[shesulsa]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful and return to the original topic.

-G. Ketchmark
-MT Moderator-

 

[michaeledward]

Actually to be honest, tact is relative, and in this case it was your opinion.

Well, yes, I guess it is.

I would have expected from you, and not for this to be continued, but as usual you cannot admit you were wrong, or mistaken, or that anyone else has a point of view other than your own. Grow up and get over it, and quit trying to tell me how to behave, for if not I will tell you how to behave. For I expected much more out of someone who posts so often in study. Yet, it did not happen. So, just let it drop, and stay on topic of the thread or report my posts, and explain why it should be reviewed. I have no problem with that occuring, our policies are in place where others review the posts, and decide if they are across the line.

The real ironic thing is that I used irony, and you took offense at it.

See, here, I seem to be getting scolded because I have some empathy for those who have suffered. I guess tact is a relative thing.

 

[shesulsa]

Please refer to my post above.

 

[Flatlander]

Well, it's interesting. The politician in question here isn't even necessarily "anti-gun" as much as he is "pro whatever you want to hear." And Lisa, you make an important point. Rather than bogging down Parliament with fresh debates over lame solutions to non-issues, why not address the real problem, and enforce the laws we already have?

The difficulty is, these politicians are more interested in talking than acting, and I think this may be a side effect from trying to operate with a minority government. The sad thing is, what gets overlooked is the fact that citizens are freaked out, and gang violence doesn't seem to be trending downward. Quite the opposite, actually.

So, why do these kids feel the need to become involved in gangs and act out violently? Is it a question of economic pressure, or the manifestation of years of bad parenting? Is it a self preservation thing? I don't have that answer. All I do know is that its a real challenge to respect a "leader" that seems more interested in talking at us than talking with us.

Maybe this is characteristic of the shift away from grassroots democracy. No longer is new legislation and governmental activity reflective of the will of the populace; it has become a dictatorial process wherein we are given a choice of which dictator to vote for. And with a country as diverse and expansive as Canada, it stands to reason that Ottawa isn't speaking the language that most of Canada wants to hear. But, due largely to voter indifference and lack of individual involvement, these clowns carry on doing the work that is important to the few who complain the most. And all the while, those few unethical and greedy public servants who snake their way into positions of authority pick our pockets with little to no oversight, spending our cash on crap that we either don't want, or don't need. Its a big, farcical, inefficient machine, spending our money with little regard for the effort it took to earn it.

So, obviously, the answer is to spend more of my money regulating the gun owners that actually follow the damn rules, because who wants to sit down and create a dialogue with inner city youth?

How's that for a rant?

 

[Lisa]

Damn fine rant, Dan. :cheers:

If the politicians really believe that there needs to be new legislation with regards to gun control then implement laws that can't be plead out. You do a crime involving a hand gun, you do the time, plain and simple. On top of that add the crime itself, like robbery, make them two separate entities. Make is hard time for those that use the firearms. Tough love, if that is what you want to call it.

I feel the same way you do. The politicians talk to the people not listen to us. Toronto is 15% of Canada's population I do believe and therefore with them and other large populated cities (Montreal, for one) the east holds a heavy weight on any election. Seems sometimes that every eligible person from Manitoba westward could vote and it wouldn't make a difference in the over all election.

I honestly thought we were going to see the last of Mr. Martin in the last election. I just hope everyone pays attention to what HAS been happening and not what he NOW promises WILL happen. It is time for a change.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Those who call brigandage 'gun related problems' usually miss the point. The problem is thuggery, pure and simple. Politicians, especially, like to try and look tough on a problem by proposing new legislation...legislation, I might add, that they have no intention of really enforcing. Apparently, they hope, that those who are already violating our current laws, will suddenly pay attention to our new ones.

They hope you are too simple to ask the question 'Didn't the people who committed these crimes commit dozens of serious crimes ALREADY? What will new laws do to prevent it?' Then they'll try to convince you that it is the easy access to firearms.

What needs to happen is to aggressively pursue those who engage in a criminal life style that would lead to a shootout in a crowded public place.

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark, and guess that the thugs who were at the heart of this incident, are by no means first time offenders, nor are they likely first time VIOLENT offenders. Had they been incarcerated for long periods of time, they wouldn't have even been able to have been in that particular location.

What's more, the problem with inanimate object oriented legislation (i.e. the idea that if we simply take the inanimate object causing our concern away) is that it fails to deal with the true source of the problem....violent criminals. We can examine the effect of over-emphasis on confiscatory laws that have the intent to protect the public in Europe, where violent criminal behavior has been creeping up the last few years.

Great Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the industrialized world, yet firearms possession by the criminal class is rising. So are crimes such as burglary and violent assault, with no fear that the public present any sort of threat to the criminals themselves.

Take a look at any US city that tried to solve violent crime with firearms bans. Lets take Washington DC as a prime example. They decided that they could fight their violent crime problem by banning all private ownership of firearms in the 1970's. DC's murder rate subsequently went up over 200%.

Meanwhile, in the US, where firearms ownership and concealed carry laws are at an all time high, violent crime in particular, and crime in general, have been falling for 15 years, with absolutely NO signs of rising again. We are now at low levels of crime not seen since the 1960's.

Now, there will be some wit who says 'Yeah, but none of that has to do with gun ownership'. Exactly. Gun ownership is irrelavent, at worst, to the violent crime rate, meaning confiscatory laws are futile.

Laws designed to treat all citizens as children, and punish them all equally, so as to avoid punishing the offenders too seriously, backfire. The same people who complain that the US incarcerates 2 Million people, are now wondering why their crime rates are creeping upwards. I'll tell you why, because our criminals are incarcerated, and theirs are walking the streets.

It should be pretty simple to understand, but apparently it isn't. We don't need MORE laws, we need extreme punishment for those that violate the laws we have.

The answer to crime is to not excuse criminal behavior by attempting to control inanimate objects.

Just my two-cents. :asian:

 

[Lisa]

sgtmac's wild shot in the dark is not too far off....

The weapon is a nine-millimetre Ruger, taken from 20-year-old Andre Thompson and a 17-year-old youth. Thompson was recently released on probation after serving 30 days for a convenience store robbery.

FULL STORY

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac's wild shot in the dark is not too far off....

'The weapon is a nine-millimetre Ruger, taken from 20-year-old Andre Thompson and a 17-year-old youth. Thompson was recently released on probation after serving 30 days for a convenience store robbery. '

FULL STORY

THIRTY DAYS?!

ARRRGHHH!! That's a travesty!!! The judge and the prosecutor should be thrown out of public service for that! The blood of the dead is directly on their hands. To allow a violent criminal to return to society after '30 days'?!

Quite frankly i'm not surprised. This is what happens when a society focuses it's crime control efforts on inanimate objects, instead of violent CRIMINALS. Everyone wants the easy, pain free 'lets ban something' way out. It doesn't work that way, folks. Deal with the criminal when he's just committed a robbery, or wait until he murders someone, it's our choice.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

THIRTY DAYS?!

ARRRGHHH!! That's a travesty!!! The judge and the prosecutor should be thrown out of public service for that! The blood of the dead is directly on their hands. To allow a violent criminal to return to society after '30 days'?!

Quite frankly i'm not surprised. This is what happens when a society focuses it's crime control efforts on inanimate objects, instead of violent CRIMINALS. Everyone wants the easy, pain free 'lets ban something' way out. It doesn't work that way, folks. Deal with the criminal when he's just committed a robbery, or wait until he murders someone, it's our choice.

Yes! Violent crime should be a one strike and you're out affair - not three strikes, which BTW, is still an improvement over previous decades. I feel so sorry for this young girl and her family. These pieces of trash should never have been let back out on the street. There is such a thing as the criminal personality and once identified, through their actions, they need to be locked up and away from potential victims.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes! Violent crime should be a one strike and you're out affair - not three strikes, which BTW, is still an improvement over previous decades. I feel so sorry for this young girl and her family. These pieces of trash should never have been let back out on the street. There is such a thing as the criminal personality and once identified, through their actions, they need to be locked up and away from potential victims.

30 days for a violent felony like robbery is mind-boggling. 30 days is a petty theft sentence, or persistent littering.

I guess now that people have been hurt and killed, they'll really get tough on this guy.....$1000.00 fine and 6 months in jail and.....200 HUNDRED hours of community service!!!! That'll teach him.

 

[Lisa]

Today, almost 6 months later, charges are finally layed in those connected with this shooting.

Two men and one teen have been charged with second-degree murder in the Boxing Day shooting death of 15-year-old Jane Creba, and five others have been charged with manslaughter.

FULL STORY

 

[Rich Parsons]

Today, almost 6 months later, charges are finally layed in those connected with this shooting.



FULL STORY

Hmmm, this seems out of the ordinary for the time delay involved from what I have seen for Canadian Legal Process (* Pronounced - PRO-cess *).

While being in Canada for over a week I saw them arrest 17 terrorist and bring charges against 15 before I left.

In previous trips I have also seen similiar time responses for shootings.

This makes me wonder why it took so long in this case?

 

[Lisa]

My understanding of the reasons it took so long is the magnitude and the amount of people involved in the shooting. Witness' had to be found and all information gathered and sorted through to ensure the evidence was clear. I suppose when there are that many people around, everyone sees things differently.

The incredibly sad thing about this whole incident is the reason to which all this started:

In February police revealed that the fatal gunfire erupted after a person's hat had been knocked to the ground.
That simple action was seen as a sign of disrespect police said at the time. It sparked an argument that led to gunfire between two groups of suspects walking north on Yonge Street from the Eaton Centre.

We have a dead 15 year old girl and more people hurt and many being charged over a hat. How sad it that?