# Shooting leaves one dead in Toronto; death in Dartmouth.



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Christmas isn't for everyone...

One dead, multiple injured in Boxing Day frenzy in Toronto:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/26/toronto-shooting-051226.html

Dartmouth, here in Nova Scotia, a taxi driver is stabbed to death on Christmas Morning:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/26/taxi-dartmouth-051226.html

It's really sad, when you think about it.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

That Toronto Boxing Day shooting was unbelievably reckless. The penalty for that kind of violence should be extremely severe, even when a death doesn't result from it.


----------



## mypowerbook (Oct 17, 2005)

So sad that this happens...so sad that there are people like that out there. God knows and they will pay one day

:-(


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Oh my... does this mean that Millers "Hug a Gang Member" program might be slightly less than a complete sucess?


----------



## antirealist (Apr 30, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> The penalty for that kind of violence should be extremely severe, even when a death doesn't result from it.


Yes, but it won't be.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

This is pathetic that we've let our government let this behavior become so out of control. It's time we elect people into power who are willing to create stronger laws to make this type of behavior non existant. It's time to put people into power who aren't looking out for themselves and simply stealing our tax dollars, we need people who are accountable, we need to change the people who are in government forever not simply elected officials but non elected officals need to be changed out. Handgun laws need to be updated and youths found in possession or to have been part of this type of behavior punished, a time for a slap on the hand is gone its time to get hard on these kids. Put them behind bars and then get them involved with the people they've hurt so they can see first hand what they've done. These kids/young adults need to see what they are doing, prison will punish them but it doesn't do anything unless they see what they've done.

Violent crime cannot and should not be dealt with in a slap of the hand type of way, we need to right these wrongs before things get out of hand.


----------



## blueangel2323 (Nov 20, 2004)

Does anyone know who the victims were? I mean, heck, it could be one of my friends... :-(


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Eats, shoots, and leaves.

Edit: okay, that was a little too flip, or harsh. Was a comment on the thread title. Obviously this kind of violence is abhorrent.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

people shot and killed on boxing day 
and we raise our voices in outrage and disgust at these "freaks" 
who know nothing about the spirit of Christmas 
and we demand that society crucify them with long sentences 
which only serve to harden them in the end 
and will stop no one from doing this again next year 
and then when we've had enough we change the channel over to a show about murder and killing that's always justified because it's good killing,
even on boxing day.

and then we wait until it happens again...it's a really big rock, ain't it Sisyphus.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> and we demand that society crucify them with long sentences
> which only serve to harden them in the end
> and will stop no one from doing this again next year


Well, I believe that there is not one thing that will reduce the level of violence. It will take a number of actions to come together. I do believe that one of those things is that sentences should reflect the seriousness of the crime. This is not crucifiction, this is making sure that perpetrators take responsibility for their decisions. It is not clear to me that tough sentences, allied with other actions, will not deter others from repeating the crimes. I do feel pity for those imprisoned, and it may indeed harden them. It may not. Either way, let them harden or soften in jail rather than on our streets.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

blueangel2323 said:


> Does anyone know who the victims were? I mean, heck, it could be one of my friends... :-(


Her name is Jane Creba. story


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

This can't be solved by a government dept at any level. What we have here is the essential breakdown in families. Young men who grew up fatherless and who have turned to a life of violence in a false pursuit of what it means to be a "man".

If we don't address the growing numbers of young men brought up without a father or father-figure, this stuff will continue, not matter how many social programs we put in place or how long we send this kids to jail for.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Well said NBiBooker, and so true. You've reminded of a quote from a book I read many years ago...

------------------------------------------
_"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men (and women) to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future... that community asks for and gets chaos."_

-from the book- 'The Great Reckoning'
------------------------------------------


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> This can't be solved by a government dept at any level. What we have here is the essential breakdown in families. Young men who grew up fatherless and who have turned to a life of violence in a false pursuit of what it means to be a "man".
> 
> If we don't address the growing numbers of young men brought up without a father or father-figure, this stuff will continue, not matter how many social programs we put in place or how long we send this kids to jail for.


I broadly agree - no one solution exists for this sort of thing. We have to make sure perpetrators are taken off the streets, but we have to dig deeper and stop the crime paying, and deeper still to the sort of thing that makes these people vulnerable to making poor choices. Family breakdown may well be a key issue.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> Well said NBiBooker, and so true. You've reminded of a quote from a book I read many years ago...
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> _"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men (and women) to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future... that community asks for and gets chaos."_
> ...


Ummmmm, yeah. The sexism in that quote exists on levels I haven't seen in ages. You want to blame this all on broken families? Fine. Then you'd better be willing to ask what society is going to do to support those families. Support, not break further by explaining how mothers can't be good role models, or by taking the child from the only family they do have.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> This can't be solved by a government dept at any level. What we have here is the essential breakdown in families. Young men who grew up fatherless and who have turned to a life of violence in a false pursuit of what it means to be a "man".
> 
> If we don't address the growing numbers of young men brought up without a father or father-figure, this stuff will continue, not matter how many social programs we put in place or how long we send this kids to jail for.


To a certain extent I agree, but I think that it doesn't take a father to teach a child right from wrong. As a child I knew not to take what wasn't mine and most importantly, to treat others with politeness and respect. Three simple rules that you would think everybody would abide by.

In my years I have seen a steady loss of respect in children towards their elders. I believe part of the reason for this is the portrayal of kids on TV as smart mouthed little schemers on every sitcom in the past 25 years. 

It all starts there, and when that basic rule of respect is lost, what we saw on boxing day is the result.

Ironic that just before christmas I predicted more of this kind of gang violence in toronto and warned that the city is as safe as some would have you believe. I believe I was told to stop reading the the Sun, stop watching CityPulse, and to take a big hit off a doob. Pretty funny now isn't it guys? hahaha


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

andreww said:


> It all starts there, and when that basic rule of respect is lost, what we saw on boxing day is the result.


Ironic that so many think that basic rule of respect can be taught by referring to teens and their mothers in disparaging terms.

Yeah, I'm getting snarky again, so I'm going out for the day. But really. Anyone who thinks that this is an easy problem, or worse, that it is helped by blaming single mothers, disturbs me greatly. Give you head a shake.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Ironic that so many think that basic rule of respect can be taught by referring to teens and their mothers in disparaging terms.


I didn't see that anywhere in this thread, care to show me?



> Yeah, I'm getting snarky again, so I'm going out for the day. But really. Anyone who thinks that this is an easy problem, or worse, that it is helped by blaming single mothers, disturbs me greatly. Give you head a shake.


Give your head a shake. 

Read the posts before jumping to conclusions. No one's blaming single moms. I'm putting the blame on the rise in violence perpetrated by predominantly young males at a lack of a father figure in their lives. 

And this is probably one of those points that is contentious, but shouldn't be. This young men need positive male role models to develop healthy self images, self respect and respect for society.

This is not rocket science and many community leaders in T.O. have already acknowledged this point.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

And if their own father is definately NOT a good example just what are these children to do? Grandfathers and uncles cannot be an everyday part of a childs life but they can be an influence, just as teachers and friends parents.
Just because a child does not have a father in the house does not mean they lack for a male figure in their lives.

The absence of a father should not be used as an excuse for the lack of respect for life, ethics, morals or property that is becoming more prevalent in todays society..................should a mother stay with an abusive man? Is this a good influence on the children? Should she stay with a drunk or a druggie just so the children have a father figure in their life? Is this going to help them?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> This can't be solved by a government dept at any level. What we have here is the essential breakdown in families. Young men who grew up fatherless and who have turned to a life of violence in a false pursuit of what it means to be a "man".
> 
> If we don't address the growing numbers of young men brought up without a father or father-figure, this stuff will continue, not matter how many social programs we put in place or how long we send this kids to jail for.



NBi

I couldn't agree with you more. We're reaping what we've been sowing. Its a moral and ethical crisis and no government program can fix that. These punks are the byproduct of our rejection of morality and family. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> NBi
> 
> I couldn't agree with you more. We're reaping what we've been sowing. Its a moral and ethical crisis and no government program can fix that. These punks are the byproduct of our rejection of morality and family.
> 
> ...


This may not be a popular view, but here goes. I just don't think it is that simple. I know a number of families with no father, some due to death by disease and the mother has raised fine young sons and daughters in spite of the absence of a father.

One has to think that the influence of gangs and drugs and the allure of nearly instant wealth and the power of packing a pistol are to blame, perhaps more than any absentee father.

Toss in the violence youths have become accustomed to in movies, music and video games and you have the recipe for disaster.

Blaming the fatherless family is not totally correct. There are many factors at work, including the Liberal government's instance on maintaining a multicultural society where old country views and values leak into Canadian culture and things not normal 30 short years ago have changed core values and in fact, even the value of life itself in the eyes of gang members. 

Rather than adopting Canadian values, were these values fostered in countries where murder and mayhem were the norm in the formative years of gang members lives, or the lives of their parents?

We need to get at the root of the problem and selecting a single reason like breakdown of the family will accomplish little. We must broaden our approach and change society as a whole, not just certain gang members.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Brave words. Although I disagree, in a way, thank you for the point of view and the willingness not be crushed by truth from popularity.

I think that there is some connection between our social changes and what our society has become. I do, however, strongly feel that the change is good. I think a lot of the old lower crime rates (amongst other social ills) was the surface appearance of what was, to me, unacceptable restrictions on behaviour whether by law or communal ostracism.

We are not condemned to higher crime rates and other problems, but if there is some link between social problems and liberal (note: small 'l') social values, I think what we have become was worth it. Too many restrictions and discrimination was accepted, in my opinion, to justify the quiet life for what was a much more homogenous and controlled (self and otherwise) society. Freeing people to do as they will may not be beautiful, but the idea is.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

"Too many restrictions and discrimination was accepted, in my opinion, to justify the quiet life for what was a much more homogenous and controlled (self and otherwise) society. Freeing people to do as they will may not be beautiful, but the idea is.[/QUOTE]"

The idea may be beautiful................but at what cost?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

What was the cost of not doing it?

Many of the rights gained in the past hundred years were opposed, in part, based on the downfall of society as it was then known. Society was more ordered, but that order entailed the enormous hidden cost of physical, legal and psychological repression. From extending voting rights to protection of many forms of discrimination to ending laws that made illegal actions we now take for granted, all were connected to a different concept of what society should look like. 

I think it was worth it, but it was not free.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Nothing is really free............but we still have a long way to go because violence, although it has always been there, is not acceptable.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Agreed. But, hypothetically, if the cost of equality and freedom is violence, what do you choose? There are enormous complexities in the question and each instance would have its own response, but if the basic ideas are occasionally at odds, the choice is not clear, objective or agreed upon.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

I'm not going to touch this fatherless families point because I think its just silly, and any point to make has already been made.

This likely isn't politically correct but neither is shooting a 15 year old girl. But throwing more money at social programs to help them isn't going to help. Fixing our immigration policy will. The people involved in these gang shootings are from families who have come from countries where it gun crime and violence is part of everyday life. Apparently immigration thinks by letting them in they'll instantly change their ways. 

We need to get strict with gun crime, more police no lenience on gangs or violent crime, and stop letting people into our country that come from violence ridden areas. While it might be unfair to discriminate against these people, is it fair to bring violence into our towns and cities. Is it fair for a 15 year old girl to be shot in the head while shopping with her family, for no other reason then being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is it fair for the other 7 people who were injured by these fools who think they are above the law? If so you can tell that to Jane's parents, that their daughter had to die because we thought it would be discriminating to let someone into our country who came from violence ridden areas, which may or may not pose a possible danger to our society. Guess what it’s a immigration policy its supposed to discriminate against people, we aren’t here to let in everyone otherwise our country would turn into a impoverished nation run by criminals. 

Gun violence will only get more rampant if they know we won't do anything in response to these atrocious attacks. Stop it where it lies and stop it before it gets here.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Oh geez, Jacklar... the "hug-a-thug" crowd isn't gonna like what you have to say.

Never mind, everything you've said is true. Not politically correct though.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Cameo said:


> And if their own father is definately NOT a good example just what are these children to do? Grandfathers and uncles cannot be an everyday part of a childs life but they can be an influence, just as teachers and friends parents.
> Just because a child does not have a father in the house does not mean they lack for a male figure in their lives.


 For many of these troubled teens, there isn't a strong family bond like you've described. That's why gangs have such of an appeal. 



> The absence of a father should not be used as an excuse for the lack of respect for life, ethics, morals or property that is becoming more prevalent in todays society.


I'm not giving excuses, I'm talking about one of the major contributing factors in these young men choosing to live their lives this way. 


> .................should a mother stay with an abusive man? Is this a good influence on the children? Should she stay with a drunk or a druggie just so the children have a father figure in their life? Is this going to help them?


Clearly not. Again, positive male role models and father figures are what's needed, not people who make the problem worse.

Also, just because I think there's a breakdown in the family that's contributing to this, I also think there are other factors such as a youth culture that endorses promiscuous sex without consequence (see fatherless children problem) and glorifies violence. (Hello, Fiddy Cent). 

Finally, we also need to put the most violent young people who have shown no sign of rehabilitation or remorse or who commit such a blatant crime as a gun spree in a crowded downtown street, in jail for a long, long time.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

interesting article...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...081&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Jobs and taking the profit out of the drug trade is a start point.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> I didn't see that anywhere in this thread, care to show me?


Right. Let's parse this thread then, shall we?



NBiBooker said:


> What we have here is the essential breakdown in families.


A reasonable enough place to start. And probably an excellent analysis. Which you then discredit by saying:



NBiBooker said:


> Young men who grew up fatherless and who have turned to a life of violence in a false pursuit of what it means to be a "man".


So you assume, firstly, that most of the individuals in question are from broken families where it is the man who is gone. Statistics back you up. Poor methodology in making that assumption, but not a big deal. You then go on to assume that mothers are incapable of teaching what it is to be a man. That's sexist, and it certainly smacks of prejudice aimed at single mothers to me. Then we have the assumption that any father figure is better than none, which I trust that if you actually thought about you would recognise as being incredibly wrong.



NBiBooker said:


> If we don't address the growing numbers of young men brought up without a father or father-figure, this stuff will continue, not matter how many social programs we put in place or how long we send this kids to jail for.


OK, so you have acknowledged the possibility of a father figure who is not actually the father, and you want it addressed, but you don't seem to think that the mothers who are present (or grandparents) might be able to do that. Again, the blanket assumption that single mothers can't raise boys.



gwillikers quoting someone else said:


> "a community that allows a large number of young men (and women) to grow up in broken families, *dominated by women*, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future... that community asks for and gets chaos."


emphasis mine. So, clearly, the problem is the women. If only these poor boys had access to a father figure, everything would be perfect. Notice the phrasing - broken families are bad, but the main problem is when they are dominated by women. I realise that you were quoting from somewhere else, but this is the opinion that you and others espoused.



NBiBooker said:


> Read the posts before jumping to conclusions. No one's blaming single moms. I'm putting the blame on the rise in violence perpetrated by predominantly young males at a lack of a father figure in their lives.


Right. Of course. How silly of me to see fail to see the subtle difference in logic there. I did read all the posts, many times. I also had decided not to say anything, until gwillikers quote pushed one too many buttons.



NBiBooker said:


> And this is probably one of those points that is contentious, but shouldn't be. This young men need positive male role models to develop healthy self images, self respect and respect for society.
> 
> This is not rocket science and many community leaders in T.O. have already acknowledged this point.


For the record, I don't disagree. Young men and women both need positive male and female role models both. What I am objecting to is the highly sexist slant to yours, and others, comments. The children of poor families, broken or otherwise, have a difficult time accessing positive role models. This is a function of our culture, which ensures that the poor stay poor, and that in order to make ends meet, poor working families in particular are rarely if ever home. Granted that wealthy parents are also often not home, but they can afford to hire substitute role models, and the wealthy standards for misbehaving in youth are different. Are broken families a problem? Yes. But to pretend that single mothers can't provide the guidance necessary to their kids is horribly misguided. Any failure on their part is at least in part a result of a society that has created poor ghettos, and that works hard to keep people living in them.
I could have quoted other bits and people from this thread, but these two posts were the ones that made the point most explicitly. Or at least the ones that caused me to lose my resolve to stay out of it for once.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Jobs and taking the profit out of the drug trade is a start point.


Bingo. And a hard look at what society teaches poor people about their own worth.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> For the record, I don't disagree. Young men and women both need positive male and female role models both. What I am objecting to is the highly sexist slant to yours, and others, comments.


When I read the quote I posted, I don't see it as disparaging women. It simply is saying that women can't always control young men in the absence of positive male role models. Young men often gravitate to gangs in that situation. The quote isn't sugar coated, it is what it is, women can't always be miracle workers, why turn it into sexism?

A mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> When I read the quote I posted, I don't see it as disparaging women. It simply is saying that women can't always control young men in the absence of positive male role models. Young men often gravitate to gangs in that situation. The quote isn't sugar coated, it is what it is, women can't always be miracle workers, why turn it into sexism?


That's how I interpreted the posts.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

NBiBooker said:


> For many of these troubled teens, there isn't a strong family bond like you've described. That's why gangs have such of an appeal.
> 
> 
> I'm not giving excuses, I'm talking about one of the major contributing factors in these young men choosing to live their lives this way.
> ...


So, what do YOU propose?

Seems to me you have only opinions, not solutions, or did I miss something?


----------



## grafico (Mar 25, 2005)

Doesn't anyone use condoms?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Bingo. And a hard look at what society teaches poor people about their own worth.



cue Tyra Banks, Donald Trump, Kelly Ripa, any perfume ad, Sex and the City [read shoe commercial], etc.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Jobs and taking the profit out of the drug trade is a start point.



Jobs- Most certainly.

remove drug profits?

The only way to do that realistically is to sell it at the LCBO or the cornerstore. Not just marijuana but crystal meth, cocaine, acid, lsd, ecstasy, crack, you name it. You'd have to sell it all and without restriction or someone else will still be selling the other garbage and making big bucks doing it. Sure you'll take it off the streets but you'll also be putting drugs in the hands of more people more easily and thus creating more addicts and all the social baggage that goes along with it. I think the cure could be as bad or worse than the problem it was meant to address.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm last time I checked there were restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes and addictive personalities are not bred they are born. 
Treat drug addication for the medical condition it is and provide medical treatment in the same way that it is currently provided for alcohol and opiate addiction as well as gambling and other drug addictions ( prescription etc ).

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...done+toronto+success+2005&hl=en&client=safari

If the Amish can be lured into being suppliers by drug profits then anyone can. 
Just track the murder rate per 100,000 during both Prohibition and The War on Drugs.
BOTH show that violence and murder rises when substances are banned or criminalized instead of controlled.
A street crack dealer in Chicago makes about $3.50 and hour and risks death every day........why that risk???k......it's the best job around .

The multi community initiative by the communities involved needs full support and stuff like the systematic bigotry in police forces needs dealing with.










http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

There will always be some element of society that preys upon addiction - taking away the economic incentive helps.
Providing jobs and education also helps.

Tell me again about family impact when the Amish ended up supplying 25% of the Canadian marijuana trade and are heavily involved in cocaine 

http://www.saturdaynight.ca/feature/article.cfm?listing_id=31&pg=4

Money lures.....










http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc10/Amazing.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

NBiBooker said:


> Finally, we also need to put the most violent young people who have shown no sign of rehabilitation or remorse or who commit such a blatant crime as a gun spree in a crowded downtown street, in jail for a long, long time.


No, we need to eliminate them.

They are a threat to all society and they need to be eradicated.

Nothing more, nothing less.

That is the hard line that will foster change.

If they live by the gun, let them die by the legal guns of police.

Again, not many will like this view, but one must fight fire with fire.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No you fight fire by reducing the elements that feed it. You put the water on the source not on the fire.
Choke off oxygen - no fire.
Choke off profits - less violence.

There will always be damaged humans. FAS kids are a horrible example. You gonna shoot them too??
Societies can be peacable - they've gotten far more so over the past decades.
More work needed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Societies can be peacable - they've gotten far more so over the past decades.
> More work needed.


Show me one major city in Canada whose deaths by gang member shootings with handguns have not increased in the past five years?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez let's get a really narrow definition - you know very well violent crime overall is well down and continuing to fall and gun deaths as well.

Areas have had and will have sporadic flareups of gang related violence when turf wars break out - Quebec notably with the motorcycle gang wars.
That's NOT a broad trend and has happened in cities since North America was invaded by Europeans.

The fights come over the territory to EARN MONEY. 
Did you LOOK at the stats of Holland versus the US so called war on drugs??

Which program is more effective??

*Community policing*, community programs, long terms for hardcore "just don't get it" types, opportunities to earn income, decent housing.
All help - it will never wipe it out entirely.

Opportunity provision AND substance control/addiction help has a double effect of reducing profit for gangs AND helping reduce domestic violence.

The numbers on domestic violence against women and children are horrifying but I don't see the drums beating so loudly there.



> a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.


Risk from gangs......very small compared to domestic causes.
And the two ARE intertwined.

THIS is the type of program that deserves strong support and why the community initiative in Toronto is so important.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/voc/rest_just.html

and this



> David Miller's initiative
> Dec. 29, 2005. 01:00 AM
> 
> Mayor David Miller's youth-at-risk strategy:
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...795&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845



> PACT endorsed by UN
> 
> PACT has been endorsed by the UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence Against Children (The PACT program was attended by Kofi Annan’s handpicked independent expert. His comments included "its one of the most remarkable processes I have ever witnessed."
> 
> ...


http://pactprogram.ca/Frameset/fram...tmenu&_UserReference=2BFDF842CCE6937943B43914

THIS kind of initiative works to redirect kids at risk.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> A street crack dealer in Chicago makes about $3.50 and hour and risks death every day........why that risk???k......it's the best job around


$3.50 / hour?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - take a look a Levitt's book on the subject - a few "up the line" kingpins make "executive" incomes.
Fascinating tale.

The question he asks is ."Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?"

and goes on to answer it.
By chance a biz major got into the crack business and kept "corporate level records" of the nature of the biz for several years- breaking it down



> An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang's Finances
> 
> Steven D. Levitt, Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh
> 
> ...


http://www.nber.org/papers/w6592

••••



> the willingness of gang members to accept risks of death, all of which suggest that *the implicit value that gang members place on their own lives is very low.*


The heart of the issue


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There's a lot of good ideas being tried out, such as the Vancouver injection site and the Toronto example MacDoc provided. Eventually, there'll be a whole suite of initiatives that work together: tougher sentencing, community childhood efforts, legalizing some drugs etc. 

A problem with these complex social issues is that measuring success and failure is very tricky and often done wrong or not possible to do right with the data, so communities are left to reinvent the wheel again and again. 

There's not much to be done about that immediately except to encourage politicians to take chances on new ideas, instead of raising hell for imperfection, and to actively support information collection improvement at all levels so that the good ideas can be definitively separated from the bad, and communities have better information about which ideas will work for their unique circumstances.

Longterm study of these intiatives is vital. If they are subject to political lifespans then we'll only get the good ideas that show results in less than 4 years, and randomly succeed and fail on long-term ideas.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

This issue of gangs and violence is an incredibly tough nut to crack. Normally I would have ranted on about how our liberal justice system is at the root of the problem. But when you think about it, putting young men into the prison system often produces a mature and improved criminal coming out after time is served. Penitentiaries are basically criminal colleges.

Obviously it's going to take a multi-faceted approach, and there are many good ideas in this thread. If only our elected officials would take it as seriously. More support for single parent families would go a long way, as would job creation, job training, and raising the minimum wage. MacDoc has hit on some important points concerning the drug trade, and out here on the West Coast, that is nearly always the root cause of our violence.

Having said all that, I fear we're still just scratching the surface. And the really funny thing is, I can't help but think back, decades ago, to the horror parents felt when they first saw Elvis shake his hips, and saw the Beatles for the first time. In hindsight, pop culture was innocent back then, but it's far from innocent now, and it may well be quite significant in this discussion too.  

But I just turned 47, so what do I know about pop culture?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

The only long term cure for the Jamaican gang violence is to sterilize every female over age 12. The culture these people come from is NOT the same thinking as ours. The men believe it makes them more macho by knocking up as many women as they can. More babies = bigger bragging rights. The women think it's cool to have several kids from different fathers. 

We have a system in place that encourages these women to have MORE babies, not less. More kids = more welfare money. As long as they have young children they can remain on welfare for the rest of their lives. If they keep producing children faster than rabbits there will never be enough jails, jobs or social programs. There is plenty of access to free birth control. Too bad they have no desire to use it.

Jamaica has a matriarchal system where children are raised in predominantly female families, usually by the grandmothers. A few men may provide for a while but then it's off to find another female to impregnate. It's a system that's been in place generation after generation. It should be no shock that they come here and carry on the same way. I will add here that not ALL Jamaicans are like this. There are definitely 2 different classes. You won't find the middle class carrying on like this. The kind that are acting up are from the slums of Kingston or Mobay. 

I've had many a Jamaican friend try to explain to me the thinking of these people. Indeed, all of these friends are afraid of them and have moved their families away from Toronto. One of the folks I've known for almost 20 years. He warned me a decade ago that things would get much worse. Back when his family immigrated to Canada it was difficult to get in and they underwent rigorous background checks. They had to prove that they could sustain themselves without government assistance. They were checked to make sure that they had no criminal records. They had to prove that they would make a contribution to Canadian society. Unfortunately, the immigration system became more and more lax. The government was interested in getting more and more people here without the necessary background investigations. Many came here as visitors and stayed. Illegals have never really been pursued.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Its too late to do anything. Once you have rats and roaches, you likely always will. Canada has been the victim of bad immigration policies, and now we are paying the price for it. I remember back to the late 70s whem my cousin from Britan wanted to become a Canadian citizen. She had a house, she had a well paying job waiting for her, but she was denied. Canada was so bent on becoming multi cultural that they were willing to let trash in from any other part of the world, but if you were an upstanding white person, forget it!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Andreww, I was able to become a Landed Immigrant here in Canada back in 1977. I had a teaching position waiting for me here at Memorial University and did not experience any difficulties in entering the country. I became a citizen in 1997.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Where were you coming from and where did you settle?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I've heard of the system being very slow, but also know a number of British and New Zealand immigrants, some from within the last 10 or so years. 

The points system appears to favour: wealth, education, employment, family connection and language. I'm not aware of a race bias in Canada's immigration policy, but would like to know more. Maybe you have more of an issue with Canada's refugee policies?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

It's obvious the point system only applies to those from the US, Australia/New Zealand, Europe and from India/Pakistan.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

adagio said:


> It's obvious the point system only applies to those from the US, Australia/New Zealand, Europe and from India/Pakistan.


I'm sorry, but you are full of bull****.* The point system applies equally to all immigrants, but does not apply ever to refugees, who are admitted under a different set of criteria. Anyone who wishes to immigrate here must have sufficient points, and must have a sponsor. That sponsor can be an employer or a family member or a religious institution, but they must have one. Points are awarded based on education and language skills. Then there are additional points depending on whether you have a place to live or employment. Then there are also additional points based on how wealthy you are. This last section CAN outweigh all the others, if you are wealthy enough. The theory, remember, is that we only want immigrants who can support themselves. Hence the sponsor, who is theoretically responsible for 10 years (ie. if the person ends up recieving government benefits, the sponsor may be required to pay that back to the government :yikes: ).
Refugees, however, are a different kettle of fish altogether. It is virtually impossible for someone from a western democracy to claim refugee status, but, frankly, that's as it should be. People can try, as draft dodgers from the US did back in the day, and as some recent deserters from the US forces have, but the basic test is about whether a person's life is in danger, and that is pretty hard to claim if you are coming from the US, or from Europe. But the point system applies to all immigrants, from all places. I have extensive personal experience with the system, including people who are NOT from the places you list, and you, sir, are talking nonsense. 



*OK, I would not be able to live with me if I did not call out the racism of adagio's last post and andreww's as well. But since most people disagree with me, apparently, on issues of discrimination, I shall leave it at this statement.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt, this time I agree. 

Thanks for the information on our system. It was what I suspected from just generally listening to political issues, but it's good to have someone who knows describe the requirements.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Andreww, I came from Athens, Georgia and went to St.John's, NL


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> So you assume, firstly, that most of the individuals in question are from broken families where it is the man who is gone. Statistics back you up. Poor methodology in making that assumption, but not a big deal.


I'm just going to ignore the poor methodology cheap shot because the point is that many of these young thugs come from broken families or were raised by single moms and did not have many positive male role models. That being said, there are some that had everything going for them and they still became thugs.


> You then go on to assume that mothers are incapable of teaching what it is to be a man. That's sexist, and it certainly smacks of prejudice aimed at single mothers to me.


 Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop using knee jerk terms like "sexist and prejudice" because frankly it's a cheap way for you to shut down opinions you don't like. 

It is not sexist to say that a mother is not the same as a father. It is not sexist to say a mother cannot provide a positive MALE influence for a young man. This doesn't mean she can't provide a positive FEMALE influence, but that's not what my point was about. It's also not about single moms doing everything they can, which in most of these sad situations, they have but their sons still turn to the gangs and the violence.

Your comments on my posts smack of arrogance and of rely on liberal assumptions that there's only surface differences between the sexes when it comes to their role it raising a child. A happen to think there are fundamental and complimentary differences. It's not sexist, okay? 


> Then we have the assumption that any father figure is better than none, which I trust that if you actually thought about you would recognise as being incredibly wrong.


Read my follow up posts, where I stress POSITIVE male role models. Or don't, whatever. 


> OK, so you have acknowledged the possibility of a father figure who is not actually the father, and you want it addressed, but you don't seem to think that the mothers who are present (or grandparents) might be able to do that. Again, the blanket assumption that single mothers can't raise boys.


Again. Words in my mouth. I'm saying single moms often do a fantastic job. What I'm arguing is that they often need the help of positive male influences when raising a young man. 


> So, clearly, the problem is the women. If only these poor boys had access to a father figure, everything would be perfect. Notice the phrasing - broken families are bad, but the main problem is when they are dominated by women. I realise that you were quoting from somewhere else, but this is the opinion that you and others espoused.


No it's the point you keep raising in a frustrating example of beating a straw man. 

Let's be crystal clear. Single moms raising inner city youth without the help of a positive male role model have to fight against the influence of a rap culture that espouses violence and sex and shows their sons a twisted image of what it is to be a man. It helps to have a real male positive influence to counter act what is being mass marketed through music and movies. 



> For the record, I don't disagree....


Well at least something we can agree on. I think if you would stop for a second and get past throwing terms like sexist and prejudice out there, you might realize that wasn't what I was talking about and that were almost on the same wavelength here. 

No one's blaming single moms, okay? We're saying they often need help raising young boys. I'd make the same argument about single dad's raising a young girls if there was a culture out there encouraging young girls to be violent and to treat sex casually. Fortunately (or unfortunately) such a culture seems to be predominately targeting young males.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, we need to eliminate them.
> They are a threat to all society and they need to be eradicated.


Not going to happen. We had the death penalty debate, and it's gone. So lifetime in jail is the best we can do. Not that I disagree, however you wanted to know my solution, not my wishes. 


> If they live by the gun, let them die by the legal guns of police.
> 
> Again, not many will like this view, but one must fight fire with fire.


Whoa Judge Dredd. Making cops the police, prosecutor and executor isn't a smart move. 

No, we need to:

1. Examine what we can do to create greater education and job opportunities for those youth who want to turn their lives around. 

2. Make the penalty for gun offenses extremely severe. Ie. No house arrest, mandatory lifetime bans. 

3. More cops and a national anti-gang strategy that combines social aspects with policing. 

4. Mandatory federal prison sentences for violent crimes involving guns so that we can get those who can be rehabilitated, rehabilitated. Those who can't, stay in jail. 

5. Better use of the dangerous offender provision in the Criminal Code. Gang leaders, here's looking at you and the rest of your life in jail.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

NBiBooker

Excellent post. Your original statement seemed pretty clear to me and I certainly didn't read it as an attack on women or blaming them for the problem. If anything it was more an attack on deadbeat fathers that were not stepping up to the plate to accept responsibility for the children they brought into this world. Leaving the job to a single mother to try and handle on her own. And yes I agree, men and women contribute differently to the raising of children. Both bring a different dynamic into the family that is equally important but different. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> This issue of gangs and violence is an incredibly tough nut to crack. Normally I would have ranted on about how our liberal justice system is at the root of the problem. But when you think about it, putting young men into the prison system often produces a mature and improved criminal coming out after time is served. Penitentiaries are basically criminal colleges.
> 
> Obviously it's going to take a multi-faceted approach, and there are many good ideas in this thread.


While I agree with a multi-faceted approach, I consider our justice system to be a big part of the problem. We don't punish perpetrators of crime, especially repeat offenders.

Rudolph Giuliani significantly reduced crime in New York by pursuing a 'broken windows' policy. The concept is that minor crimes, such as broken windows, ultimately lead to more serious crimes, such as gun violence. By prosecuting minor offenses, you reduce the major ones.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Levitt would disagree quit strongly with this statement

Vandave wrote


> Rudolph Giuliani significantly reduced crime in New York





> ROBERTSON: And so Bratton (Bill Bratton, former NYC police commissioner) and Guiliani and New York City weren’t the authors of that dramatic drop in crime in the Big Apple?
> 
> LEVITT: We don't think so. *If you look at the data, the crime in New York started falling four years before Guiliani ever took office.*


http://www.700club.com/cbnnews/news/050701a.asp

and another view as well



> Giuliani's Legacy: Taking Credit For Things He Didn't Do
> 
> By Wayne Barrett
> 
> Rudy Giuliani's legacy is that he was the luckiest mayor we have had in a long time. He was blessed by being mayor when we had a great national upsurge in the economy. He was blessed by being mayor when we had a national downturn in crime. He was blessed because he had very little to do with either phenomenon in New York, but most New Yorkers and most tourists will think he did.


http://www.gothamgazette.com/commentary/91.barrett.shtml



> Wayne Barrett, a senior editor at the Village Voice, is the author of "Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani"


It's the willingness of the community faced with the gang violence ( and historically just about every ethnic group imaginable has faced it ) along with support from the greater community and government that has reduced the violence.
As communities see prosperity and acceptance and pride violence goes down.
Hopelessness, lack of opportunity, abuse in the form of discrimination by the very authorities charged with helping them.

Here's a list with some links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_gangs and that just scratches the surface of world wide gang and related activity as most of those are US.

Every society for millenia has faced violence and gang related activity


> Gangs date to the Roman Empire; America's gangs evolved from an urban phenomena
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/news/expresstimes/stories/gangs_16.html

Why this sounds like a few of the "sentiments" expressed here



> *The Nativist philosophy of strong opposition to the flood of new immigrants coming to America just prior to the Civil War* was held by some of the gangs originating in New York City's most fearsome ghetto, The Five Points.


No simple answers. A good overview of the problem CANADA WIDE.......is here



> People who arrive in Canada with nothing often focus on providing a home for their children through hard work that can mean being away from their kids to the point that they're neglected, Kandola said.
> 
> Much of the poverty experienced by black gang members in Toronto is a direct result of former Ontario premier Mike Harris's social cutbacks from 1995 to 2003 that saw the decimation of education and recreation programs, Wortley says.
> 
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051224/ca_pr_on_na/year_gang_violence


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Would enacting California's "three strike rule", especially in the case of gang members and repeat offenders be an effective deterrent in Canada?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Silly MacDoc, everyone knows that social programs are unrelated to the conditions in which people live, and totally unable to address the problems of violence. Haven't you been reading this thread? Silly boy. And you dare to criticise the slavish worship of debt reduction at all costs (also known as the conservative agenda) that Mike-the-greatest-premiere-ever-Harris blessed us with? Why, that's not just silly, it's borderline mutiny! Dammit, man! If you want to combat crime, the only solution is harshness. Show those punks who's boss! We cannot allow this assault on our community to continue. Dispense with the silliness of trials and the rule of law. A gun for every man, woman and child! Civillians and police, empowered to gun down anyone who looks like they might be a gang member! These are the only solutions, and you know it. There is, after all, no better way to teach respect for life than to take life from those who don't respect it. There is no better way to teach kindness than to be harsh. Mikey knew the truth. Many of the people of this forum know the truth. What is your problem?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

RM -Smart ass 

•••••

Yeah Sinc that's really done a great job in Texas and California.....

•••

Here's the other half of this that is seriously out of whack

Now with all due sympathy to the victim's family, this is AN ACCIDENT.

No more no less than the hundreds killed by drunk driving. Why the hell is all this being blown waaaaaay out of proportion. 



> Out of 420 pedestrian fatalities, 38 per cent of those tested for alcohol had been drinking, and most of these had BACs over 0.08.
> 
> Almost nine out of every 10 people killed in alcohol-related collisions (87.4 per cent) were in or on the drinking driver's vehicle (i.e. drivers/operators or passengers).
> 
> ...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I also take issue with the term murder in this context. While it may have legal bearing it implies intent - no one set out to "murder" the girl - she walked into a crossfire no different than if she walked into an intersection with a drunk driver speeding through a stop sign.


There is certainly some merit in your overall point.

However, the drunk driver scenario offers a major difference. This would be a person acting in a grossly irresponsible manner. 

The shooter decided to leave home carrying a weapon, the purpose of which is to threaten, and/ or cause harm. That is setting out with intent to use, or threaten to use the weapon. When he pulled the trigger he intended to harm. That this girl was not the intended target is indeed an accident, but the fact that he intended to harm remains.

So to many of us there is a difference between walking into the intersection and being hit by a drunk driver, and walking through a crowded street on which someone pulls a gun and begins shooting with the intention of doing harm.

If it were my child I know I would feel no difference in the sense of loss, no less anger regardless of driver or shooter. In the case of a drunk driver it is arguable that they know they are drunk, they know how dangerous it is to drive and therefore they turn the car into a weapon. I still feel there is a difference between that and someone who carries a gun.

The shooter set out prepared and equipped to do harm, and he did.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Would take the same line of thinking an extend it to any weapon - or could be weapon. The girl may have been shot by one of the gang members "acting in self defence" however ludicrous that might be in a modern city ( see Florida - you don;t even have to be part of the conflict - just jump right in guns blazing).

Irresponsible behaviour leading to death - the gunman is acting criminally - SO IS THE DRIVER.

My point is that's the event is an ideology football and invokes out of proportion responses. An innocent pedestrian killed even by a multiple offender drunk doesn't make the headlines in the US. This does.

A spouse murdered won't make those headlines either unless it's particularly gory yet that is far and away a larger problem. And that's murder in every sense.

Peacable starts with common sense and lack of demonization. What I've heard here appalls me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> What I've heard here appalls me.


Me too, but until society meets gang violence with much more harsh sentencing nothing will change.

If this keeps up, normal people will fear to walk the streets of major cities.

That's all thanks to the liberal, "don't be too harsh it was an accident thinking" types that govern this country.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Pelao said:


> The shooter decided to leave home carrying a weapon, the purpose of which is to threaten, and/ or cause harm.


Really, I take offense. We have already well established on this forum that guns don't kill people. They are recreational tools that do no harm, and I won't tolerate any more of this anti-gun propaganda. Everyone knows that there is no correlation between gun control and crime rates. Don't you pay attention to this wise words of the NRA and the Fraser Institute? Honestly, I can't understand why we are still having this discussion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You keep that stupid "it's getting worse" mentality going 



> 52 people have died from gunfire in the city this year. It's a far lower total than the more than 1,400 killed in New York, *but the greatest number of gun killings in Toronto for 15 years.*


Note the caveat........15 years ago there were more. It is a small number of 1% ers that the communities need help in dealing with and also to keep the fringe kids from going down that road.
Without addressing root problems you just get more feeding the machine as you have in the US -kids who get tossed in with the experienced criminals for Crime U. advanced courses.

Get the cops off the damn soft crimes like pot smoking and INTO the communities and FROM the communities and put social services INTO the "at risk" communities. 

The communities know who they are, the city does too. Cop culture needs an overhaul and that is in place.
if you've got corrupt cops beating up people which we certainly did in the GTA, stealing from druggies etc - the sytem is bust.
Miller is making the right approach and now with some decent funding will make a difference but as the author elsewhere mentioned the problem is "intractable" at a certain level.

The same $70k a year keeping a soft offender in jail might keep 10 fringe kids OUT of jail.

First - lose the profit incentive.
second - provide alternatives both in recreation and education/employment for at rick kids
third- hardnose the 1%ers with policing FROM the communities involved. Beat cops, no cruisers with sunglasses.

Takes time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You keep that stupid "it's getting worse" mentality going
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, it took time to bring the rate back to levels of 15 years ago, but if we adopt the "head in the sand" it'll go away if we aren't too harsh is ludicrous.

If gangs aren't reined in with brute force, and quickly, what do you think the rate will be 15 years from now?

It's only going one way and that's UP. Watch it happen if we don't change the system to make them pay heavily and swiftly.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> First - lose the profit incentive.
> second - provide alternatives both in recreation and education/employment for at rick kids
> third- hardnose the 1%ers with policing FROM the communities involved. Beat cops, no cruisers with sunglasses.
> 
> Takes time.


As I said earlier in this thread, no one thing can reduce this sort of violence. I think you have clearly identified the 3 broad areas which need attention - all at the same time. yes, it takes time, but I would go further and say it never ends. The broad, hard approach will take leadership (there we go, leadership again...) to become part of our governing culture.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Anyone who can consider such an act an "accident" is clearly out of touch with reality.

Punks who pack pistols do so for a reason. To intimidate and maim and kill if the opportunity arises. And that includes ANYONE WHO GETS IN THE WAY.

To believe anything else is just plain misguided. Better get used to it. It's becoming a trend in Canadian cities.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I heard on the radio today that one of the punks caught has had various gun related offenses before. Surprise, surprise, the amount of jail time was in days.

Had some of these punks been in jail to begin with, this may never have happened.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> I heard on the radio today that one of the punks caught has had various gun related offenses before. Surprise, surprise, the amount of jail time was in days.
> 
> Had some of these punks been in jail to begin with, this may never have happened.


A punk is a punk is a punk.

Sooner we halt their spread, the better.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I agree. Some types of people shouldn't be allowed to continue or spread. I recommend sterilisation for the undesirable elements in our societies. Hrm. Punks is pretty hard to define, though. Is there a punk gene that can be identified? Maybe we should just play it safe, and eliminate those racial groups who seem to produce the most punks. That kind of approach seems to serve the Americans well, after all. The most important thing, of course, is that we not give any more wasted energy thinking about how a person might have come to have such an outlook on like. That kind of brainless liberal thinking just distracts from the task at hand. Anyone have a scalpel?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sometimes it takes a scalpel to achieve healing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

RevMatt, please tell me that you are not serious with your contention that "Maybe we should just play it safe, and eliminate those racial groups who seem to produce the most punks." Nazi Germany thought the same thing, which is why I have no living European relatives anymore. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Dr G., I can assure you that Matt was being totally sarcastic.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> RevMatt, please tell me that you are not serious with your contention that "Maybe we should just play it safe, and eliminate those racial groups who seem to produce the most punks." Nazi Germany thought the same thing, which is why I have no living European relatives anymore. Paix, mon ami.


I've noticed Matt doing something in this thread that I personally abhor in intellectual debate. That is, taking the point of view that you are opposed to, writing a sarcastic post taking those views to a cariacature of themselves - taking them to the extreme of the ridiculous. Because then anyone disagreeing with his 'real' views will be seen as agreeing with those extreme opposite views.

Stop it Matt. It's unbecoming to your intellect and denotes a lack of true debating skill. (People who do this are generally losing the debate.)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gw, I make the same assumption. RevMatt is too fine a person to advocate this POV. It was early in the morning when I read his posting, and I did not notice the nuance he was trying to create throughout this thread.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MLeh, in support for RevMatt's technique, I have used this as well in various threads. The only problem with this technique is, as I did, people misread your posting and think that it is you point-of-view and belief.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I understood RevMatt's intentions quite clearly. It is not a method I would choose, but he does make his point in that manner nevertheless.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

New Year begins with a gun killing
Jan. 1, 2006. 07:56 AM
ASHLEY JOANNOU
STAFF REPORTER

Less than six hours after marking the end to the "year of the gun" a man in his 20s is Toronto's first homicide of 2006.

Police were called to the intersection of Eglinton Ave. and Northcliffe Blvd., near Eglinton and Dufferin St. just before 5:30 a.m. today after a passerby found a man sitting in a car who had been shot.

When police arrived the man had no vital signs and was taken to Sunnybook hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Police are canvassing the area looking for witnesses to the shooting.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And so my prediction the illegal handgun body count will continue to rise yearly begins on day one of the new year.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Disposable people, is that what's being suggested? 
A punk is a punk just like an Indian was an indian not very long ago, or a ******?
Have some courage people, the end of the world is not just around the corner with the next violent outburst by a (in)visable minority. The way we treat people in our language and actions will say so much about what kind of solution we want to this problem.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> That is, taking the point of view that you are opposed to, writing a sarcastic post taking those views to a cariacature of themselves - taking them to the extreme of the ridiculous. Because then anyone disagreeing with his 'real' views will be seen as agreeing with those extreme opposite views.


I generally agree with your points. That style doesn't, in my opinion, further one's point unless it is a true reductio ad absurdum, not just a caricature of someone's points.

But (there's always a but  ) I also find that the occasional post of that type can, if done a certain way, lighten the mood and/or change the focus of the discussion.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Beej said:


> But (there's always a but  ) I also find that the occasional post of that type can, if done a certain way, lighten the mood and/or change the focus of the discussion.


What can I say? I'm generally not this irritable. Really.  

No sense of haha today, I guess.

Anyway - to get back on topic. 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make sure that STUPID people can more easily kill.' 

Carry on ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Stupid people are a part of our heritage (hands up everyone who thinks they aren't stupid?). Laws have to tread a fine balance between protection and freedom. This topic will go on forever by necessity and for our own good.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Google map of homicides
http://www.thestar.com/static/googlemaps/starmaps.html?xml=homicides.xml


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Stay away from Calgary - bodies flying everywhere, gonna be tons more of these all year 



> *Bodies ‘flying everywhere' in Calgary hit and run*
> Monday, January 2, 2006 Posted at 7:06 PM EST
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


Let's look at drinking patterns - real problem in Alberta - gotta get these drunken punks out of the country...... let's look at getting shot versus getting killed by a drunk...........

Perspective overdue.....long overdue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Stay away from Calgary - bodies flying everywhere, gonna be tons more of these all year
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Such an opinion is hardly worthy of a comment, but for the record give me any city in any western province over the monster that is the GTA and what it has and will become.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"The monster that is the GTA?" No hyperbole there, no sir.

Sinc, please ease off on the drama queen antics. Feel free to give MacDoc his comeuppance, fine - but try to rein in the cliched anti-Toronto hysteria, wouldja, huh? Besides, it's early in the new year and I'm trying to make good on my resolution to refrain from expressing my innate Torontonian monstrosity.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sure Max, your wish is my command. Wouldn't want to upset anyone from the COTU now would we?

Carry on with punks shooting each other, just like in Edmonton.

Call it normal.

Whatever.

Just don't do anything to stop it. Call in the John Howard Society to tell you why it's normal behaviour for males without Dads. Or whatever.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey man, now you've lost me. You've got the elephant gun out now and you're fairly spraying the room. Lest it remain unclear to you, I'm not taking you to task for your personal take on the Yonge St. shooting here in Toronto. For the record, I think that terming it "an accident" is an obscenity, period. I'll leave to to decide on your own what that means.

But if you want to keep spraying the room, I'll just have to rely on my body armour. As you say, 'whatever.'


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> anti-Toronto hysteria


that's a recognized sport in Alberta isn't it?
as typed by a former hawg-towner


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Hey man, now you've lost me. You've got the elephant gun out now and you're fairly spraying the room. Lest it remain unclear to you, I'm not taking you to task for your personal take on the Yonge St. shooting here in Toronto. For the record, I think that terming it "an accident" is an obscenity, period. I'll leave to to decide on your own what that means.
> 
> But if you want to keep spraying the room, I'll just have to rely on my body armour. As you say, 'whatever.'


Sorry Max.

My point is that every metro community in this screwed up country is living with the threat of punks using illegal handguns to enforce their God given right to sell drugs.

TO has in no way suddenly grabbed the rights to this distribution or the mayhem that will surely follow it.

We are all victims of the same gang mentality and it won't go away anytime soon with the "it's not their fault, they have no father crowd".

We need to kick some serious butt to right the wrongs. Trouble is neither you or I will do that. We have to give enough authority to police to use the boots on these types.

Hope that makes it more clear.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems you have difficulty understanding *accidental death from a criminal act.* SHE WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY MURDERED as a spouse might be or in a kidnapping or extortion :rolleyes"

Drunk drivers in cars or punks with guns........bystanders get killed and BOTH issues, and the HIGHEST incident issues, need resources, NOT driven by media attention alone.

The article in the Star today has much to my point about media circus and lack of perspective.



> *Racial issues surface on eve of Toronto gun violence meeting*
> Jan. 3, 2006. 08:11 PM
> 
> FROM CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Society has a range of risks and limited resources to ameliorate the impact and reduce the incidence.



> "We have been calling for a summit for the past three months," Sandra Carnegie-Douglas said at a news conference.
> *"We've had over 40 black youth die as a result of gun violence, and we have not seen our government react in such an immediate and strong way."*


any wonder there is alienation...... 

The girl in Calagary and the girl in Toronto died unfortunate and sad deaths due to criminal activity - the root causes of which need addressing in an ongoing manner.

Maybe a few less bars in Calgary is the easy answer to one of them so there won't be "Bodies flying"..........
I see the comparison doesn't sit so well..........good ...that's the point.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Sorry Max.
> 
> My point is that every metro community in this screwed up country is living with the threat of punks using illegal handguns to enforce their God given right to sell drugs.
> 
> ...


Sinc, no offense taken - well, nothing _serious._ I am still struggling to grow a thicker skin in my lab vats - the experiment keeps going disastrously awry - dang this cutting edge tech! But thanks for the clarification... I see better where you are coming from.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Seems you have difficulty understanding *accidental death from a criminal act.* SHE WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY MURDERED


They're not sure about that yet. Apparently he might have been part of an altercation that happened earlier in the evening. Eg. This might have been revenge. No one knows for sure.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When it is Toronto Paul Martin reacts with a handgun ban. 

When it is Edmonton where the murder rate is 70% higher, you never hear from him. Odd, don't you think?

Quote:
"But at the risk of being parochial, it's worth noting that Toronto is not Canada's homicide capital. Far from it. With 37 murders in 2005, a new record, Edmonton has the dubious distinction of having a murder rate that is per-capita 70% higher than Toronto's.

Perhaps I missed it while recovering from Christmas dinner, but I don't recall Paul Martin flying to the Alberta capital to offer support to Mayor Stephen Mandel and promises of stiffer sentences for violent crime."

Full story here:

http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Stanway_Paul/2006/01/03/1377724.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't think the handgun ban would get many easy votes in Edmonton, whereas in TO it does...plus there's only one Liberal seat in Edmonton. 

It's not just that he doesn't care, it's more of a mutual thing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc - that's exactly right- things are out of perspective and that's my point. Media and politics. 

•••



> They're not sure about that yet. Apparently he might have been part of an altercation that happened earlier in the evening. Eg. This might have been revenge. No one knows for sure


The girl walked out into the middle of an existing gun fight - THAT IS known.
The fight itself was likely part of an ongoing dispute - but she was not involved in any altercation.
She ended up in harms way exactly as the girl hit by the speeding drunken driver.

•••



> It's not just that he doesn't care, it's more of a mutual thing


Black humour but only too true.......


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I was talking about the girl that got run over, not the girl that got shot. The girl that got run over may have been part of the initial altercation, no body knows for sure right now... so conclusions can't be drawn.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh sorry -  not sure if that's worse or not.  Dead is dead.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Oh sorry -  not sure if that's worse or not.  Dead is dead.


Ya, I guess when you're dead there is no consolation prize.  

I heard on the radio this morning that the parents of the girl actually forgave the 18 year old that ran her over. Wow. I don't think I could do that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc - that's exactly right- things are out of perspective and that's my point. Media and politics.
> 
> •••
> 
> ...


Macdoc, I take exception with your remark "The girl walked out into the middle of an existing gun fight - THAT IS known."

I would submit she did not "walk out" into anything. The gun fight was not "existing" prior to her death. She was shopping when the gunfight broke out. She may never have taken another step once the firing started. She could very well have been hit by the first bullet and dropped on the spot with no warning.

The point you do not seem to understand is that this cannot be compared to a drunk driver. When the person who fired the fatal shot pulled that illegal handgun, he intended to do serious body harm to one or more persons. That is what guns do, they kill people and anyone who fires one at another person is fully aware that he may kill that person. That is a premeditated act, as is the carrying of a loaded handgun in today's society.

Add to that, the fact that he made the decision to fire that weapon into a crowded city street full of shoppers, and one can understand it was a callous disregard for any human life, innocent bystander or not, and again a deliberate act, NOT an accident.

The drunk driver's judgement is impaired, thus making a bad decision to drive, but not likely a premeditated decision to run down someone. In fact too many drunks think they can drive better under the influence. When a person tries to cross a street and is killed by the drunk, that is an accident.

If you pack a loaded gun, then use it, it is no accident. It is not most certainly a deliberate act of violence and callous disregard for any human life in the line of fire?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

She walked out into the cross fire - is that hard to understand.
A criminal act ending in the death of a bystander is the result - gun or vehicle.
Impairment is NOT A DEFENSE.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> She walked out into the cross fire - is that hard to understand.
> A criminal act ending in the death of a bystander is the result - gun or vehicle.
> Impairment is NOT A DEFENSE.


Didn't say it was but there IS lack of intent. A drunk behind the wheel never intends to kill anyone. That's why the decision not to drive when impaired has to be made while sober, and actions taken in advance to ensure you don't make the wrong choice after drinking. 

Pulling a loaded gun shows intent. Big difference in my mind.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Sad...............I agree with Sinc about guns versus drunk driving.
A person does not get drunk with the intention of getting into their car and killing someone..........poor person afterwards has to live with what happened.
If you take a gun then there is a definate intent to kill, especially spraying bullets into a crowd.........I don't understand the arguement here, seems clear cut to me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So driving a van at speed, while drunk, the wrong way down a street "sending bodies flying"....and killing a girl.....perhaps intentionally as it turns out, is somehow "jest boys bein' boys"..........horsepucky.

Finally one of the Globe columists put some perspective on the media frenzy



> COMMENTARY
> *Read my lips: There is no crime epidemic in Canada*
> 
> By JEFFREY SIMPSON
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ry/LAC/20060104/COSIMP04/TPComment/TopStories

:clap:

he concludes 


> *Crime sells newspapers and drives TV ratings ("if it bleeds, it leads")*, which is the most plausible explanation for the media's focus, despite the statistical evidence that serious crime is declining.
> 
> *An immense amount of pernicious nonsense usually surrounds violent crime reporting and its breathless aftermath.* Canada, like all Western societies, has a generalized crime challenge, what with thugs and nasty people around.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> So driving a van at speed, while drunk, the wrong way down a street "sending bodies flying"....and killing a girl.....perhaps intentionally as it turns out, is somehow "jest boys bein' boys"..........horsepucky.
> 
> True.......it is not "boys being boys", that seems to show intent, but the majority of drunk drivers don't get in their vehicles with the intent to kill someone. The above probably got drunk as "courage" to continue with his intent and I doubt follows the norm for drunks. You cannot take one instance and use it as an example of the majority.
> 
> Someone loads a gun then there is intent to harm.........I am not talking about the unfortunate kids who find their parents firearms that weren't put away properly and have some tragic accident happen. I am talking about someone taking a loaded gun and firing it at someone/people. Seems a big difference to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As a supporter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), while it is not the intent of a drunk driver to kill someone, once you get behind the wheel of a car after having had a drink, I feel that this is the same as closing your eyes and spinning around in circles..............all the while shooting off a hand gun. I may be scorned for this view, but just as the arguement might be made (albeit an absurd one) that I did not intend to kill anyone while spinning around and shooting this gun, I feel that it is equally absurd to say that you did not intend to drink and drive and hurt/kill someone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's exactly why I stated earlier:

The decision not to drive when impaired has to be made while sober, and actions taken in advance to ensure you don't make the wrong choice after drinking.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, this is why I like the idea of Young Drivers of Canada teaching defensive driving techniques to help someone avoid an accident, if at all possible, with a drunk driver.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

While getting drunk is stupid in the first place, letting a substance control -driving while drunk is incredibly stupid - but there is not the thought in their head stating - I am going to kill someone. Loading a gun and shooting at people is a sober, deliberate action to kill. There is no substance control


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

So I just heard on the news this morning that the Boxing day shooting in Toronto was caused because one of the gang members had his hat knocked off in the Eaton centre and wanted to get even. Hang them.

John


----------

