Perks apologizes for foul-mouthed barb during heated gun debate

[HEYHEY]

The only people who connect crime rates and guns are the gun supporters 'proving' there's no connection. I didn't even mention it. What I said was the when people are angry or frightened they'll use whatever's handy. If no gun is available, they won't use a gun, which is after all a machine for killing. And the victim can maybe benefit from bad improvisation.

If it took five month's per gun, you'd have made a point about impulse-control by statute. But that's all about the decision to become a gun-user/owner. Who can then buy a gun, like buying a car, pretty much as fast as the VISA terminal can process.
Nope. Just makes twice as many guns available. That may make gun use twice as likely some day. See above.

The crackwhore desperate for a $10 trick might have a different definition of "expensive" and what "…everyone can afford". Fortunately, a gun would be beyond his addled means. And even though I've happily been left with nothing more than memories after blowing hundreds of dollars now and then on dances, I can assure you that the carnival atmosphere where I purchased them had a lot to do with my decision-making at the time. Sellers have been using carnivals like the Sportsmans Show to juice their sales since the beginning of time. We need more thoughtful gun owners not more bedazzled ones.

Whatever the boat reference was intended to drive home, it missed. But I'd bet more than one spouse of a new boat-owner would support a drive for impulse control at the Show. But unlike cigarettes and guns, boats do not kill when used as intended. So extra precautions are quite sensible for both.

Actually if you use your mind and not emotion (fear) you'll notice a fucked up trend. The more guns, the less crime. I know, couldn't believe it myself. (example chicago, washington dc) But then again thieves and criminals aren't THAT retarded, they'd rather rob an old lady with no gun, then someone who's packing a semi auto with 17 hollow point bullets ready in the magazine.

This idea that simply owning a gun will result in more crime is nothing more than hysteria brought on by people who a) know nothing about firearms (they'll call em automatic assault type weapons lol) b) are afraid because they look bad in a movie. There are over 10,000,000 legally owned guns in canada and nothing is happening. Responsible, like minded people do not pick up a gun and start killing others. They are forced to follow retarded rules, that really make no sense, so that others who are afraid of guns have the ILLUSION of being safe.

Yet on a weekly basis you hear on the news that Jamal shot Liroy at jane and finch with an ILLEGAL gun, which often they were PROHIBITED from owning in the first place. They didn't have a license to buy one, they purchased the gun illegally, didn't have the magazine limited to 10 rounds, like the law abiding citizens are forced to have, didin't have a authorization to transport the firearm and dint belong to a range, yet the politicians and people do NOTHING to prevent these guys from doing it again. Instead they'll put more restrictions on LEGAL firearm owners. Does anybody see the problem with this?

You are restricting good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and doing NOTHING against the people who couldn't care less about any laws you come up with. At the same time you are making the lives of criminals much easier, because there is no risk to them, after all no one is gonna carry a gun on them, its easy picking.

When was the last time anyone heard of a cop get robbed at gun point or raped while in uniform and carrying their gun? Because i have never heard of such a scenario, because criminals, rapists etc look for a easy target, you know the 110lb girl walking home alone at night, no traffic around...

 

[oldjones]

Actually if you use your mind and not emotion (fear) you'll notice a fucked up trend. The more guns, the less crime. I know, couldn't believe it myself. (example chicago, washington dc) But then again thieves and criminals aren't THAT retarded, they'd rather rob an old lady with no gun, then someone who's packing a semi auto with 17 hollow point bullets ready in the magazine.

No one to speak of 'packs' in Canada. There is no such trend here, and what happens in Chicago or any other US city under entirely different criminal and public safety laws and behaviour patterns has no relevance to a thread about a Toronto City Council debate.

Nor does it hold water in the US. Too bad you can't ask the Snickers buying kid in Florida how safe the carry-laws made him. Or was it his mistake not to be packing himself, so he could have stood his ground and put down the aggressive bozo playing vigilante?

 

[buttercup]

Guns = BAD resonates with what most voters and media want to think.

Gotta tell you that Guns = BAD resonates with what I think, as well, and I have a university blue for target shooting.

 

[fuji]

If no gun is available, they won't use a gun, which is after all a machine for killing. And the victim can maybe benefit from bad improvisation.

Then, we should see that showing up in the stats somewhere. And it might, but it's REALLY hard to detect. I've been on both sides of these debates because I'm opposed to things like concealed carry. You have people there bringing up stats showing that concealed carry laws reduce crime. And they might, but it's REALLY hard to detect.

What I've learned in all these debates is that gun policy has very little impact on these things. There appears to be a very steep law of diminishing returns. Once you've screened prospective purchasers and eliminated the people with warning signs in their background, anything further that you do appears not to make much of a difference. Either you're dealing with someone who wasn't going to bother following the law in the first place, or you've got a determined individual like Breivik who was going to succeed in killing people no matter what. The ordinary law abiding folks who could be prevented from putting themselves or others in danger already have been, by asking their spouses whether they approve of the license, by doing a background check, and so on. After that it's not clear that additional policies--either loosening the law to allow concealed carry, or tightening it up to limit gun ownership even further--make much of a difference at all.

(In fact, when it comes to "sensible" regulation of firearms I think the gun community itself does a better job than the government does. I would think the most sensible way forward would be to increase that self regulation. I have seen people tossed out of gun clubs for behavior that other firearm owners simply considered completely unacceptable, but which was perfectly legal. For example, there is no law against hunting with a round in the chamber and the safety off--but everyone I know will exclude you from any event, shoot, or hunt they organize if that is what you do--you're unsafe to be around. It's my opinion that if you moved to a self-regulatory model, where some sort of association of firearms owners set the rules that we would then all have to follow, that there would be a much greater emphasis on the things that really matter--core safety issues--and much less stupidity around stuff that doesn't, purely political stuff that accomplishes nothing but irritating law abiding people.)

It might be that there is a real impact to some of these policies nevertheless, but it's so small that it's very hard to measure. Almost all studies on this topic are challenged on the grounds that they overlooked some confounding factor. Everything from poverty to demographics to an aging population seems to have a bigger impact on crime rates, murder rates, death rates, etc., than gun policy itself does.

If it took five month's per gun, you'd have made a point about impulse-control by statute. But that's all about the decision to become a gun-user/owner. Who can then buy a gun, like buying a car, pretty much as fast as the VISA terminal can process.

Yes, once you are licensed to own guns you can buy a non-restricted instantly. Walk into a store, hand over your cash, walk out with a gun. The same is not true of hand guns or other restricteds. For those after you hand over your cash you have to wait for the CFC to process the transfer, and issue an authorization to transport so you can bring it home. So that's usually a few weeks.

However I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. Are impulse buys somehow a bigger problem when they relate to guns? If I were worried about impulse buys at the Sportsman show, I would be much more worried about the guy who signs himself up for the payments on a $20,000 boat, on impulse, than the guy who walks out with an $800 rifle. Thus inevitably you're going to advance some sort of ideological argument, rather than a fact based one.

In other words--this doesn't seem to be a gun issue. You seem to have a general problem with the sportsmen show that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that firearms are on offer there.

The crackwhore desperate for a $10 trick might have a different definition of "expensive" and what "…everyone can afford". Fortunately, a gun would be beyond his addled means.

A crackwhore or similar would not be able to purchase guns legally. First, such a person is unlikely to pursue the months long process it takes to acquire a license. Second, they're not likely to pass the background check, which is rigorous.

 

[fuji]

No one to speak of 'packs' in Canada. There is no such trend here, and what happens in Chicago or any other US city under entirely different criminal and public safety laws and behaviour patterns has no relevance to a thread about a Toronto City Council debate.

What seems to have happened is that crime in general has reduced everywhere, and people have attributed it to the changes in their gun policy. So, in Canada, where we increased restrictions on guns, there's a certain group who promote that and say the crack down on firearms is responsible for the decline in gun crime, murders, and so on. In places that relaxed their gun laws, and allowed for concealed carry, etc., they saw the same decline in their crime rates, and they have published studies attributing the decline in their crime rate to their increased gun freedom.

In reality my opinion is that neither policy made any significant difference to the crime rates, and that the decline in homicides on both sides of the border have to do with larger demographic issues, and very little to do with gun policy.

As I said, if you take a careful look at all the studies on both sides, the only sensible conclusion is "no definitive answer", the data just doesn't support making strong claims one way or another. What IS clear is that all of these other factors, other than gun policy, make a much bigger difference to these variables than gun policy itself does.

Here's an interesting question: If you defunded, entirely, all of the government apparatus around gun regulation, gun enforcement, and so on, shut down the CFO's, shut down the CFC, disbanded the RCMP task forces, the verification centers, and all the associated ministerial staff, and took all that money and pumped it into improved educational opportunities and employment opportunities for the most marginalized people in our society--would it have a bigger impact on the crime rate? I think it would.

The gun issue is a funny one. The people who are generally in favour of harsher criminal penalties for gun crime TEND to be the same people who see mandatory sentencing as a stupid thing, who think get tough on crime policies are misguided, and tend to be people who view preventative measures like improved social safety net, better education, etc., as the answer. Except when it comes to guns. Then they want to take a get tough on crime approach, with mandatory sentences, and don't care that the people they're targeting for increased police resources and enforcement activities--namely people who hold gun licenses--tend to be well employed people who simply don't generally commit crimes.

 

[fuji]

Here is an example of how Canadian gun policy is diverting resources away from real issues, towards enforcement against people who are not even remotely a threat to society. Consider the police resources used in this example, and ask yourself whether you think that is how enforcement dollars should be spent.

This fellow is in his 60's and previously served in the Canadian forces. He's owned firearms since he was in his 20's, and at that time you could purchase some that are now prohibited. In particular, he had an automatic weapon. When he left the service he was legally able to acquire the same rifle he had served with, so he did. When the law was passed making that a prohibited weapon the people, like him, who owned one were grandfathered. His firearms license had a special exemption that entitled him to continue to own the prohibited firearms he already had. This is a rifle that he'd owned for some 30 or 40 years or so at this point. He's no longer legally able to fire the weapon, but he's lawfully entitled to have it under this exemption, so he does.

Well at some point he forgot to submit his paperwork to renew his license, you have to do that every five years. It lapsed, by, I think, about a week. He did refile his application, but the government took the point of view that since he was unlicensed for a period of time he was applying for a new license, and a new license cannot have the grandfather clause allowing him to continue to own that automatic rifle. They issued him a new PAL that lacked the exemption entitling him to own the automatic rifle, so he would have to turn it in.

His own damn fault, no doubt, so far, no big issue. Just a guy tripping over some red tape. Had he refiled his paperwork on time there would have been no issue. While he's pretty angry about having to give up his long-owned firearm, I think most Canadians wouldn't have much sympathy for his right to own automatic weapons. I'm ambivalent about it. He's obviously safe with them, but I can also see the logic in prohibiting them. Anyway, point here is, he's entirely law abiding, other than he forgot to file his paperwork on time when one of the deadlines came up to do that.

What happens next is where things get ridiculous:

Toronto Police deployed the SWAT team to his house, multiple officers from the guns and gangs squad backed up by SWAT, to raid his home and recover the prohibited firearm. With the number of people deployed this amounts to hundreds of hours of officer time spent recovering this rifle. This guy is a law abiding guy--they COULD just have knocked on his door and asked him to turn in the firearm. Heck--they probably could have just sent him a letter, asking him to bring it in to the local RCMP detachment. He's never committed a crime in his life, never been charged with anything, never had any interference from the police, he likely would have simply complied.

But clearly this rifle he's owned for 40 years, without ever causing any sort of problem, required a full field deployment of all the resources that Toronto's guns and gang squad could muster, because his paperwork had lapsed.

The outcome, of course, was that he peacefully turned over his firearm as requested. Something he would have done (grudgingly) if two polite officers had shown up to ask for it. He wasn't charged with anything. He peacefully handed over the weapon--angry no doubt--but a law abiding guy, so of course he complied. There was no real damage to his home, nobody was hurt, but a huge amount of police resources were expended that day.

I realize this goes beyond a discussion of the actual text of the law, but it does go to the heart of the issue:

The people who are pushing for a crack-down on gun enforcement are pushing for more of this kind of activity. For police and government resources to be diverted away from, say, drug dealing gangs and others who really do kill people with guns, to enforcement against a 60 year old Canadian forces veteran who has peacefully and lawfully owned his firearm for decades.

There is a level of insanity here.

 

[HEYHEY]

"There is a level of insanity here. "

It is insanity, but they have to justify their 80,000$ a year salaries, for some its 100,000$+. Now if you had the choice to go kick down the door of a gang banger who has broken the law all his life, and there was a very good chance that he's gonna shoot back, wouldn't you want to go to the old man instead? Shit, you still APPEAR to be doing your job, this way you get to go home at the end of the day. Fuck the old guy, hes just a victim of shitty people surrounded by shittier laws.

 

[oldjones]

In other words--this doesn't seem to be a gun issue. You seem to have a general problem with the sportsmen show that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that firearms are on offer there.

Absolutely not; the Sportsman's Show, the selling of guns there, and whether Council should allow it on City property is the topic. Unless the OP meant us to debate politeness of word choices. Like you I'm responding, mostly to points I disagree with or find 'not proven'.

Guns are meant to be deadly. The fewer of them around, and the more thought people are required to put into their purchase, storage and use, the less likely will be the incidents of improper use. Like any fair, the Sportsman's Show as a business venue is meant to minimize any cautionary thought, where I think it essential for gun retailing that cautions and careful reflection should be maximized. So I'd say the Show would be welcome, but not if gun-dealers sell there.

Side issues like the cost of guns relative top anyone's pocketbook, guns and general crime, shootings in Florida (or anything gun-related in the USA which is a unique case in the world) even the general topic of government gun policy can be fascinating, and you have shared much thought with us, but they take me too far afield. And mostly, they're not relevant.

I see no one's deep needs or rights infringed by having to go to the Convention Centre rather than The CNE to enjoy the show, and I think it every bit as proper for Council to refuse space to a gun show as to refuse it to a Tobacco Fair.

Just in case the topic was meant to be polite language, Perks apologized promptly for his vehemence, leaving little or nothing to debate.

I enjoyed your Insanity Story, although I did feel sympathy for the guy who lost his service rifle. It might illustrate the foolishness that can result when big bureaucracies try to do little things, like when your car dealer tells you the only way to replace the broken glass in your side mirror is to buy the whole unit, including remote control. But it really says nothing about gun control or firearms policy. I want the police to be fully prepared and armoured when they know guns are an issue. In Mayerthorpe they were unprepared. And I'm willing to bet the cops involved in your story were were more than happy to play 'better safe than sorry' and suit up.

Having had a similar showdown around the corner from my house, where that 'Old Guy' had multi-prohibited weapons and ammo, and was not readily co-operative, I'm with them. And more than once myself having been the innocent—and legally permitted—guy who just happened to have a gun in that garbage bag, I don't ever want a shirtsleeve cop to think only using her sidearm is gonna keep her alive. If there are guns, I'll happily pay my taxes for the backup to arrive up front. And I hope the Ontario government shows the good sense of Quebec's and establishes and maintains a provincial registry, so cops will know as muc h as they can about what they might face at the door.

 

[fuji]

The fewer of them around, and the more thought people are required to put into their purchase, storage and use, the less likely will be the incidents of improper use.

What do you mean by "improper use", it's important to nail that down properly because the current act has definitions of improper storage and use that don't imply unsafe behavior. Allowing a license to expire while still possessing firearms is criminal, but not necessarily unsafe. Assuming that by "improper use" you mean essentially unsafe behavior, violent behavior, or threatening behavior, I don't actually think reducing the number of guns would significantly alter the number of cases of that sort of improper use.

Why not?

Because again there's two groups of people out there who acquire firearms. There are people who jump through all the hoops and do their best to comply with all the regulations, and then there are people who never had any intention of following the law.

For the former group, there is a diminishing return from regulation, and it's my opinion we long since passed that point. They're already required to submit to multiple levels of training, they are screened every five years, their spouse and friends are asked whether they can be trusted with guns, their guns are already safely stored, and safely transported, and for handguns they already report to the police where their guns are and where they may be transported to. No further restrictions on gun ownership are going to result in any significant decrease in "improper use" because all the obvious things that should be done have been done, and there's not much more juice to wring out of that orange.

As for those who don't follow the law, there is probably a considerable amount that can be done to crack down on those guys, and subsequently that would result in a significant decrease in gun crime. We're talking people who don't bother getting a license, or who get a license but never had any intention of complying with its terms. This class would include the shooter at the Brass Rail, who didn't just resort to a gun he had handy in an emotional situation--he was flagrantly violating several laws by carrying concealed, and had it been illegal for him to possess a firearm, would probably just have bought one illegally. It would also cover all the thugs who buy guns without a license.

There's probably a lot that can be done there, in terms of limiting the sorts of guns that can be carried concealed, cracking down on smugglers, and so on, but the police resources really aren't being put towards that stuff. The police spend most of their time investigating and charging the former group--the people who are generally law abiding, who registered their guns, who have their license, who try and follow all the safety rules and regulations. For example, the guy I mentioned up thread, where the Toronto police deployed a huge number of officers to retrieve a firearm they could have got back by sending a letter. This is where most gun enforcement occurs, and I would argue it has negligible impact on crime rates. Had that team instead searched the home of some known gangster, I think they would have made a bigger difference.

Like any fair, the Sportsman's Show as a business venue is meant to minimize any cautionary thought, where I think it essential for gun retailing that cautions and careful reflection should be maximized.

This is stuff and nonsense. It sounds nice but it literally means nothing. The buyers are already qualified, they've thought long and hard about buying guns, jumped through all the hoops. They probably already own at least a couple and owning one more is not going to change their risk profile one iota. What could you possibly hope to accomplish by making it more difficult for them to buy firearms??? I don't think you can come up with a single credible example of a dangerous situation that would be avoided by making it harder for any current gun owner to buy another firearm in a class they already own.

When it comes to the sorts of guns that are commonly used in crime you already can't impulse buy them. You have to apply to the CFO for an authorization before you can take delivery of your purchase, a process that takes at least a couple of weeks. What you can impulse buy are rifles and shotguns, and no doubt, anyone willing to buy firearms on an impulse already has more than one of those. How is having one more going to create any kind of dangerous situation??

By the way, I did go to the Sportsmen show last year, and I went there specifically to look at the guns they had on sale. I didn't wind up buying any. I did wander through the myriads of fishing and boating displays, but that's not why I paid my entrance fee. I did, however, stop by the Savage Arms booth and got a few questions I had answered about a rifle I own--which enables me to take better care of it, and ultimately, that improves safety, doesn't it? (I strongly urge you to support Savage Arms. They're an American company, but several models of their rifles are made right here in Ontario, with "Made in Lakefield, Ontario" engraved right on the barrel. I believe that every proud Ontarian should own one--and they're top quality too.)

I see no one's deep needs or rights infringed by having to go to the Convention Centre rather than The CNE to enjoy the show, and I think it every bit as proper for Council to refuse space to a gun show as to refuse it to a Tobacco Fair.

If this were the only example, sure. But Council has done much more than that. It has shut down all the lawful, licensed gun ranges in the city, forcing residents in the city who want to go target shooting to drive out of town to practice it. Their issue with the Sportsman Show is just a specific instance of this more general policy, in fact, they never singled out the Sportsmen Show--it's their general anti-gun ordinance that makes it impossible for the show to set up on city property. I do think that is some considerable infringement. As a firearms owner who lives in the core of the city, how does it benefit anybody that I have to drive out of town with my guns in tow in order to shoot? Is that significantly safer than if I drove a shorter distance with my guns?

 

[K Douglas]

And Doug Ford's a right-wing simpleton, but saying so adds nothing to the debate or to anyone's understanding of the issues. Just like your comment above, it's irrelevant. Your fellow-citizens and mine voted those folks in—stupid and stupider—and we'll get nowhere by name-calling like simple-minded infants.

Talking sense might help them.

Oh, BTW: Along the lines of damning Perks for other things he's done, I believe Rob Ford actually coaches boys to attack each other physically.

Wow are you seriously taking a shot at Ford because he volunteers his time and money to coach high school football because no one else will? Last I checked football was a legitimate sport that can lead to scholarship opportunities. Truly an asinine statement.

 

[K Douglas]

Maybe a bit of fact checking before you provide completely false information would have been in order. He actually just spoke at a Rally where OCAP was present, a long way from being affiliated with them. Lets not let facts get in the way though, OK.

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002486



RALLY & PRESS CONFERENCE
12:00 noon, Thursday, February 7 @ north-east corner King St & University Ave (Toronto)


This Thursday, a broad collection of people will demand Housing Not War at a rally and press conference outside the Toronto regional office of Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.


Speakers will include prominent author Linda McQuaig, Toronto Disaster Relief Committee (TDRC) co-founder Beric German, Canadian Peace Alliance coordinator Sid Lacombe, Low Income Families Together (LIFT) founder Josephine Grey, NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo, Toronto City Councillor Gord Perks, and Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) member Gaetan Heroux. There will be music, and a delegation of leading peace and anti-poverty activists will hand deliver to the Minister's office the national campaign's demands and list of endorsers.

If you read what I said I used the words "I believe" meaning that I wasn't totally sure. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion he is a leftist punk who has no interest in debate or hearing differing viewpoints.