City Councillor wants to ban guns and ammo

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Adam Vaughan calls for Toronto bullet ban

"A downtown councillor wants the city to ban guns and ammunition in Toronto because he’s tired of gun violence.

“There’s no rational reason to own a gun in the city. Gophers aren’t chewing up our fields, we have no black bears going through our garbage bins and the raccoons aren’t dangerous enough,” said Councillor Adam Vaughan in an interview. “I appreciate that people like them as a sporting hobby. I appreciate that people like their guns and love their activities, but those are emotional arguments. And I’m sorry, the risks that are presented from the stores, the selling and the possession of weapons in this city is presenting too big a problem.”

"Mr. Vaughan said hunters and collectors should find a place outside Toronto to store their weapons. He would also like to see a ban on materials used to make handmade bullets such as casings, gunpowder and primers."

Full story: National Post

[normiss 622]

Not my chair, not my problem.
That's what I say.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

“There’s no rational reason to own a gun in the city.

That's another way of saying, "I feel too strongly about this to entertain discussion of the issue."

But, this is Canada. I don't care what Canada does to its own residents.

Maybe he's just being forward thinking and saying to himself, "Some time in the next millennium, the Maple Leafs are bound to have a chance to play for the Stanley Cup. We need to act now to ensure that Toronto rioters aren't armed with guns when they lose."

I think he's overestimating the chances of a Maple Leafs championship but then look at the Kings? ANYTHING is possible.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

They have the right to do what they want in their Country. You get the Government you deserve.

I would be against it in the US. I'll be honest, I don't agree with the flawed concept that banning something will make it go away (Prohibition here in the States, War on drugs, Gun bans in Chicago.... All failures).

But I also do not know if Canada has/had something along the lines of the US Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

I think Adam Vaughan is an idiot.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

They have the right to do what they want in their Country. You get the Government you deserve.

I would be against it in the US. I'll be honest, I don't agree with the flawed concept that banning something will make it go away (Prohibition here in the States, War on drugs, Gun bans in Chicago.... All failures).

But I also do not know if Canada has/had something along the lines of the US Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment.

They're a British Commonwealth country where the British Bill of Rights of 1689 should apply.

It states

Quote

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

You don't want commoners poaching the King's deer or uppity Catholics getting out of line, although otherwise people should have arms to defend themselves.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You don't want .... uppity Catholics getting out of line

Sadly, they already are.
What a world.

[sacex250 0]

I'm sure that if they just removed all the Canadians from Toronto there would be an immediate decline in all forms of violence within the city limits.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[Zep 0]

Quote

I'm sure that if they just removed all the Canadians from Toronto there would be an immediate decline in all forms of violence within the city limits.

Better still just make Canada the 51st State.

Gone fishing

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure that if they just removed all the Canadians from Toronto there would be an immediate decline in all forms of violence within the city limits.

Better still just make Canada the 51st State.

The problem there being they'd have to WANT to be the 51st state. I seriously doubt they'd want it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure that if they just removed all the Canadians from Toronto there would be an immediate decline in all forms of violence within the city limits.

Better still just make Canada the 51st State.

The problem there being they'd have to WANT to be the 51st state. I seriously doubt they'd want it.

We spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world put together and there's not much sense in that sort of thing if you're not going to build an empire.

With military spending at 1/30th of our level Canada looks like a pretty easy target.

Maybe we could just roll across the border, annex Canada, and appropriate their oil by force.

[Remster 24]

Don't forget who it was that burnt your White House the 1st time around

Remster

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Don't forget who it was that burnt your White House the 1st time around

it's slightly better defended this time.

not sure our soldiers are ready to fight in a cold arena though...been in the desert for a long time.

[tkhayes 126]

the poll is flawed to begin with.

'Banning guns' would not stop the shootings. so either answer makes no difference

ELIMINATING guns would. no guns, no gun violence. If course that is only an ideology.

At least Canada thinks it has a gun problem, the USA lives in denial. But neither country is any closer to a solution.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

At least Canada thinks it has a gun problem,

Watch this page and make sure to let us know when it jumps off the table and rampages through the town, will you?

Damn uppity guns causing problems...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 126]

Um - in case you missed it, I was actually not advocating for any sort of gun restrictions....

I simply stated that there is a gun problem - much the same as there is a car wreck problem and maybe even a drug problem

It would also appear that there is a comprehension problem too....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the poll is flawed to begin with. 'Banning guns' would not stop the shootings. so either answer makes no difference...

So then you agree that Councillor Vaughan's suggestion is useless and stupid.

Quote

ELIMINATING guns would. no guns, no gun violence. If course that is only an ideology.

It's also an impossibility, so it's also pointless. And in the process of trying to achieve it, it would take guns away from a lot of good guys who aren't the problem. Punishing the innocent because of what criminals do, is an injustice.

Quote

At least Canada thinks it has a gun problem, the USA lives in denial. But neither country is any closer to a solution.

That's like saying that drunk driving is a "car problem", or that burglary is a "crowbar problem". You shouldn't blame the objects for the crimes for which they are used. Those crimes are committed by people, not inanimate objects. Thus, there is no "gun problem" - there is only a criminal problem.

[tkhayes 126]

you guys fucking kill me,

I expect that even if I COMPLETELY AGREED WITH YOU, you would still find a fucking way to argue with me.....

get over yourselves.

good night.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Um - in case you missed it, I was actually not advocating for any sort of gun restrictions....

Um - in case you missed it, I didn't say you were advocating any sort of restrictions.

Quote

I simply stated that there is a gun problem - much the same as there is a car wreck problem and maybe even a drug problem

And I provided a link to where you could keep an eagle eye on a gun to make sure it didn't cause any problems.

Quote

It would also appear that there is a comprehension problem too....

Sorry, I typed as slow as I could.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skypuppy 1]

Vaughn isn't admitting it, but he is taking advantage of the recent shooting in the cafeteria at the Eaton Centre, possibly the premier shopping mall in Canada, which wounded 5, killed 2, and was carried out by a gangbanger who WAS UNDER HOUSE ARREST AT THE TIME HE WENT TO THE MALL AND OPENED FIRE. under house arrest for sexual assault, pending trial. I'm guessing he hadn't registered his weapon.

The two killed were members of a rival gang, but the 13 year old boy who was shot in the head wasn't. He was just out with his mom and his sister to catch a movie.

I imagine Vaughn comes up with these extreme maneuvers rather than have to actually do any work to improve the lives of the taxpayers of toronto...

He's a buffoon/

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

I just got to ask, who are the people who actually believe that banning guns at council level will actually stop the shootings?

What I'm really wondering is, can I get some of what they're smoking?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[tkhayes 126]

you forgot to re-quote the part of where I said you would still find a fucking way to argue with me.....

and you proved me right again,

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

you forgot to re-quote the part of where I said you would still find a fucking way to argue with me.....

No need to "re-quote" your post 16, since my reply was to post 14.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

the poll is flawed to begin with.

'Banning guns' would not stop the shootings. so either answer makes no difference

ELIMINATING guns would. no guns, no gun violence. If course that is only an ideology.

At least Canada thinks it has a gun problem, the USA lives in denial. But neither country is any closer to a solution.

The United States doesn't have a gun problem. We do have an educational gap which leads to economic disparity and subsequently high murder and other crime rates.

If our murder rate had anything to do with the availability of guns, blood would have run red in the streets of small rural towns where boys kept rifles and shotguns in their vehicles so they could hunt on the way to and from school. It did not.

If our murder rate had anything to do with the availability of guns, it would have been higher before the Gun Control Act of 1968 than after when it became illegal to sell guns through the mail. It was not.

If our murder rates had anything to do with the availability of guns, they'd be higher where adults without criminal records can carry concealed than in places where handguns are effectively illegal. They are not.

Our murder rates are/were not higher in those situations because they don't go up with more ready access to guns. They're high among some subpopulations due to economic and social issues that are unpopular to admit and a lot more difficult to fix compared to passing another gun-control law.

People like to cite _Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities_ (Sloan at el) as an example showing how American access to guns makes us less safe than Canadians where similar cities (size, geography, etc) are compared although this is incorrect.

Although Seattle and Vancouver are similar cities on opposite sides of the border they have radically different demographics.

At the time of the study white people on both sides of the border had similar economic circumstances and were safer in Seattle with 6.2 murders per 100,000 versus 6.4 per 100,000 in Vancouver.

In Vancouver the minorities were more affluent than average and their murder rates were not out of line with those of the white population. In Seattle the black and Hispanic per-capita incomes from the 2000 census were about half the white population's ( $18,328 and $17,216 respectively vs $35,641) and murder rates consequently many times higher at 36.6 and 26.9 per 100,000.

People's income generally comes from their educational attainment and there's a huge gap there.

Part of the education gap is due to how we run our schools. Public schools are paid for (through property taxes) and controlled (as in the curriculum) by the local populations. Students generally attend local schools. Black children are more likely to live in statistically poor neighborhoods. White children are more likely to live in statistically affluent neighborhoods where professional parents insist the schools provide college level courses so their kids can get into name-brand universities. Black children are therefore less likely to have the same educational opportunities as white ones.

Part of it is social. Children tend to follow in their father's footsteps when it comes to education and earnings.

Poor people living among the relatively wealthy will continue to kill each other until we deal with this.

[mnealtx 0]

Well said, Drew.

Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706