The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States

[MikeyMoore]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/03/484693-cp.html

The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States, and an NDP government would lobby the Americans for better gun control south of the border to improve things in this country, Jack Layton said Thursday.

"What we are focusing on is the increasing evidence that the biggest problem is illegal guns coming in from the U.S.," Layton told reporters. "We're proposing going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun-control laws in the U.S. strengthened."

[FeebMaster]

1. Maybe the roots of the United States' gun problems

are in Canada. Anyone have a link handy to that article about the Garands being smuggled into the US from Canada?

[iverglas]

5. except

Anyone have a link handy to that article about the Garands being smuggled into the US from Canada?

They weren't. Remember? The firearms registry system detected the unusual activity and it was investigated.

Nice try, though. And you did make my point so well.

[FeebMaster]

6. Right. They caught those guys.

I'm sure they were the only ones doing it. :eyes:

[iverglas]

10. c'mon, tell us what you mean

I'm sure they were the only ones doing it. :eyes:

The firearms registry system identified unusual registration (=purchase) patterns (involving straw purchasers registering in various parts of the country, apparently). An investigation was conducted, and as a result a bunch of firearms were not illegally imported into the US. What they were (antique-ish "collectibles") isn't really the point, except that they weren't likely to be contributing to a US crime/violence problem even if the scheme had succeeded, apparently. I'd say that the fact that they *weren't* destined to be "crime guns" was itself relevant for our purposes.

Is there some reason to think that this was the only case in which this would ever happen? That someone could now legally purchase, i.e. register, a bunch of other firearms intended to be smuggled into the US, and not be detected?

It's a pretty small country, population-wise. Just over 30,000,000 people. Registration of existing firearms is pretty much complete. New registrations from now on will be mainly new purchases (including transfers of existing firearms). Canadians purchase firearms for hunting, sport and rural pest control. How many is that likely to be in a day or week or month? You don't think that an extra 500 might be noticed? I do. Especially when you consider that a legal purchaser of, say, a handgun has to have a special permit for the purchase, and that the list of prohibited firearms in Canada would make what was readily available rather uninteresting for smuggling purposes.

And do you really think that anyone is going to bother importing hunting rifles into the US? Or going through the rigamarole of acquiring a handgun to be imported into the US?

Gimme a bloody break, eh?

Or do just tell us what you mean.

[FeebMaster]

35. I thought I was clear.

I'm sure the few guys they caught trying to smuggle Garands into the US were the only guys in the whole of Canada trying to do it.

Then I added a :eyes: to imply that I was being sarcastic.

[CO Liberal]

14. Maybe the roots of the United States' gun problems...

...are some peoples' obsession with guns.

[FeebMaster]

36. Nope.

I blame Canada.

[TexasMexican]

2. When in doubt blame the southern boarder

and Mexico is the root of America's drug problem, not the fact that Americans demand drugs.

[Lefty48197]

3. It's too bad that the Canadians have to worry about criminals sending guns

up there for God knows what kinds of illegal uses.

[DoNotRefill]

4. That'll go over well....

NOT.

[iverglas]

12. yeah, eh?

I wonder whether it will go over better than it goes over here when Ambassador Celucci tells us what to do about narcotics control, border security, continental missile defence, invading Iraq, "integrating" our energy market with the US's, etc. etc.

Of course, we're a polite people ...

One opinion:

U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci has called for further integration of the energy markets of the U.S. and Canada. According to CBC, "The ambassador called for a merger of Canadian and American energy markets and transmission systems, saying the U.S. wants a completely integrated energy market across the continent." It's interesting that Ambassador Cellucci chooses to deal with Canada's position on the U.S.-led war on Iraq, a war which many people believe is largely to do with securing access to U.S. oil, by recommending that Canada turn on the taps of our own energy reserves. Doing so will improve things for the U.S. by giving them better access to our energy--but for Canadians, it will mean a loss of control and thus, a loss of sovereignty.

Ask google for "ambassador cellucci" and any of the issues I mentioned, for more.

(And about all we can do when it comes to trying to get the US to be a teeny bit considerate of the neighbours is to lobby, anyhow. I wouldn't be too worried, if I were in the US. Unless the BC bud growers decide to withhold shipments in protest of US domestic firearms policies, maybe.)

And then ask the opium farmers of the subcontinent and the coca farmers of South America how well US "lobbying" goes over thereabouts. Or ask anybody at all in Cuba how well US "lobbying" goes over there. You could probably ask just about anybody anywhere in the less-developed world what they think of the effects of US "lobbying" on their domestic economic policies. And then there are the women in those parts of the world, and what they might think of the effects of US "lobbying" on the aid organizations they rely on for health care for themselves and their families.

Yeah. Dog forbid that anybody should lobby the US to do anything.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Come on, Iverglas...

Y'all are a polite people. We ain't. ;)

[alwynsw]

7. There would be no issue if there were no buyers in Canada

I'm not condoning anyone breaking the laws of any nation, but there's plenty of blame to go around. No buyers - no smuggling. Period!

Let's see; from where did nearly all of the illegal liquor in the U.S. during prohibition come? Oh! That's right! Canada.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Illicit gun trade across the border - another sterling example of what happens when any government becomes too restrictive: particularly when banning (handguns) or too tightly regulating (long guns) activities that had been without burdensome and nearly worthless (WHOOPS! Canadian gun laws are less than worthless. At last count the program was something like a couple of billions over budget.) over regulation.

on edit: I not so anxiously await the boorish diatribe that is begging to be written in counterpoint to my thoughts.

[Columbia]

8. Welcome back! (again)

:toast:

Where ya been?

[alwynsw]

18. Everywhere but home!

After the 63 day marathon, we've been taking care of some family issues that have required us to be away from home more that at home since our return. That sort of thing happens because both my wife and I have widowed moms in their 80's.

Thanks again for the welcome

[iverglas]

11. equivalency problems

Let's see; from where did nearly all of the illegal liquor in the U.S. during prohibition come? Oh! That's right! Canada. Pot, meet Kettle.

Ah yes. Alcohol is equivalent to firearms.

Not.

Not until somebody holds up a bank with a smuggled bottle of Johnny Walker Red, or kills a pedestrian in a drive-by Johnny Walker throwing, or kills a woman sitting at a Toronto restaurant table by throwing a bottle of Johnny Walker into the place, or settles a score outside an after-hours club on the streets of Toronto by throwing a bottle of Johnny Walker into a crowd, or dies when his/her classmate accidentally drops a bottle of Johnny Walker on his/her foot ... .


Illicit gun trade across the border - another sterling example of what happens when any government becomes too restrictive: particularly when banning (handguns) or too tightly regulating (long guns) activities that had been without burdensome and nearly worthless ... over regulation

WHOOPS indeed. You seem to be forgetting the tiny fact that the people acquiring smuggled firearms WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ACQUIRE THEM LEGALLY even if the rules were not "too restrictive" or "too tightly regulated". THEY'RE CRIMINALS.

But there's the funny thing.

The regulations and restrictions imposed on LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS have evidently made it kinda hard for CRIMINALS to acquire firearms INSIDE CANADA.

Else why would anybody be smuggling them in, eh?

And isn't that exactly what gun laws are SUPPOSED TO DO?

"Law-abiding gun owners" ARE NOT acquiring illegal, smuggled firearms. CRIMINALS are illegally importing and acquiring firearms because THEY CAN'T GET THEM INSIDE CANADA.

Oddly, they CAN get them in the US.

Boom goes your "logic".

(WHOOPS! Canadian gun laws are less than worthless. At last count the program was something like a couple of billions over budget.)

Gun nut logic. There's just no accounting for it.

First, allow me to say that your car is obviously less than worthless, since you spent money on it. Have I got the logic right?

Second, allow me to congratulate you on your apparent complete and abysmal ignorance of "Canadian gun laws". The firearms registry is a minor and very recent part of those laws, and you evidently have no clue what the laws actually are, or what their effect may have been, or you wouldn't say such completely and abysmally ignorant things.

Boom again.

I not so anxiously await the boorish diatribe that is begging to be written in counterpoint to my thoughts.

Oooh, I know you are, but what am I?

[Retired AF Dem]

16. Ah yes. Alcohol is equivalent to firearms

Canadian whiskey financed organized crime family's. Really not much difference at all.

[iverglas]

21. orange juice is equivalent to spit

They're both wet.

No difference at all there.

[Retired AF Dem]

22. And both of them are thick and sticks to inside of your throat

[alwynsw]

19. Can I call a sinker - OR WHAT?

[Retired AF Dem]

20. You ever use

aol instant messenger?

[alwynsw]

49. Sure do!

The handle is alwynsw1956

[sundog]

9. Why should anyone be blamed?

--

[iverglas]

13. who blamed anyone?

We don't actually think that headlines -- "Layton blames U.S. for gun woes" -- are universally to be relied on as accurate statements of what anyone said/did, do we?

You did read what Layton actually said?

The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States.

Translating that into "blaming the US" is what I'd expect to see in the US, and of course I'm not surprised to see it in the Cdn Sun newspaper chain.

Identifying the root of a problem is quite a different process from blaming someone/something for it. And it can lead to very different actions.

When one identifies the root of a problem, one, if one is wise, takes action to eliminate the root in order to solve the problem. Sort of like with lawn dandelions. One assumes some responsibility for doing something about the problem, to the extent that one can, and one urges whoever else can, to do something.

Blaming someone for something means never having to take responsibility for doing anything about it. It's their fault! (And if we punish them, everything will be cool.)

If the root of one's problem is one's neighbour's dandelion-infested lawn, there's little point in pointing a finger and blaming. One will just continue to have dandelions. Polite requests to the neighbours, and maybe the offer of a bottle of Round-up, would be a wiser approach, combined with appropriate lawn-care measures at one's own end.

Canadians have a problem: illegally imported firearms are being too widely used to cause harm in Canada.

What can Canadians do about it?

Lobbying the U.S. would not be the only step the NDP would take to stem the flow of illegal firearms.

Layton said his party would provide more support for port police and other border security programs. He also wants tougher penalties for those who import guns illegally.

"We want a dramatic stepping up of efforts to stop illegal guns from coming over the border," Layton said.

But as long as there is demand from criminals in Canada for illegally imported firearms, and as long as those firearms are readily available over the border, this is a rear-guard action. Finger in the dike.

The demand problem can be addressed by taking measures to reduce all the factors that lead to criminal activity: poverty, racism, lack of decent affordable housing, lack of access to training and employment, etc. etc. etc. Doing those things is, in fact, the entire thrust of Layton's party platform. But the demand can't be eliminated overnight, no matter how many more social housing units the NDP built if it came to power, or how many student grants it offered.

So it makes perfect sense to try to address the supply problem as well.

And since the root of that problem lies outside Canada, it makes perfect sense to go to the owner of the root and seek its cooperation. Pretty much all Layton would likely be asking for would be exactly what a whole lot of USAmericans are asking for too -- starting with requiring that all purchasers of firearms at gun shows undergo background checks. Joint BATFE-Toronto Police Service investigations have established that firearms purchased at gun shows in northeastern states account for a hugely disproportionate share of firearms used in crimes in Toronto. Close the loophole, make the neighbours happy, make yourselves safer. Win-win.

It's not like we'd be asking that the US pull out of the middle east so that we're not in danger of terrorist-attack spillover ...

(type fixed)
(oh great, edit a typo and make a typo ...)

[iverglas]

15. oh, and kudos to MikeyMoore of course

for using the actual words spoken / thought expressed by Layton as the post header, and not the Sun's "interpretation" of them.

[MikeyMoore]

23. Thanks!

:toast:

We'll get things right down here eventually. Luckily, we have our northern neighbors as a good model.

[iverglas]

24. ah, if only I didn't have such a suspicious mind

Of course, I offer this only as a blurb for Harper's, cheapest deal around in thinking-person's journalism. (Yeah, Mother Jones and The Guardian/Le Monde are better, but they're more expensive, too.)

[MikeyMoore]

25. ?

I do not really understand your response. Do you mind clarifying for me?

[iverglas]

26. the fine print

Lez just say that I find statements like

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=62163&mesg_id=62329&page=

... um ... perhaps just a bit challenged in the sincerity department.

[MikeyMoore]

27. ?

Is there something you disagree with me on? I am still unclear as to what you are saying.

[iverglas]

28. okey dokey

"It's disgrace that we allow guns to even exist in this country ..."

The statement of belief is ludicrous on its face. I find it quite impossible to see it as anything other than an effort to put some words, words that no one with a modicum of common sense, for starters, would say, in someone else's mouth. Tsk, perhaps even your namesake's.

And aren't you going to tell us what *you* think about Layton's comments and proposal?

[MikeyMoore]

29. So you think that it's ok to have guns here?

You are a confusing one, iverglas.

I don't see any reason why we should allow guns at all, whether they be in the US, Canada, or anywhere else. The UN should step in and issue a ban on all firearms.

[iverglas]

31. you seem to know me so well ...

So you think that it's ok to have guns here?
You are a confusing one, iverglas.

So well, and yet so ... not at all.

I mean, unless you do know, and you're pretending not to know, or trying to make someone else think you know something that ain't so.

What would it be?

I don't see any reason why we should allow guns at all, whether they be in the US, Canada, or anywhere else. The UN should step in and issue a ban on all firearms.

I'm coming to only one conclusion here.



Either that or a really terminal lack of common sense. For starters.

[MikeyMoore]

32. Jeez you sound like Rumfeld

I mean, unless you do know, and you're pretending not to know, or trying to make someone else think you know something that ain't so.

I was asking you a simple question. Why can't we have a discussion rather than vague accusations and retorts?

[iverglas]

33. oh no, Paco!

Jeez you sound like Rumfeld

Not the dreaded commentary on my syntax! I'm wounded, I say; cut to the quick.

Here's what you said:

So you think that it's ok to have guns here?
You are a confusing one, iverglas.

You seem to think that I think that it's not "ok" for people to have firearms in the US. Or that I think something else that would be incompatible with "it's okay to have guns <in the US>". Where would you have got that notion? Where would you even have got the notion that I express opinions about how things in the US that don't affect me, or mine, or others outside the US, should be? (And if you didn't get that notion somewhere, how did it occur to you?)

Hmmm. I can't think. (Hey, feel free to quote that one, y'all.)


Here's what I had said in this thread (particularly relevant bit underlined for your comprehending-the-point ease):

So it makes perfect sense to try to address the supply problem as well.

And since the root of that problem lies outside Canada, it makes perfect sense to go to the owner of the root and seek its cooperation. Pretty much all Layton would likely be asking for would be exactly what a whole lot of USAmericans are asking for too -- starting with requiring that all purchasers of firearms at gun shows undergo background checks. Joint BATFE-Toronto Police Service investigations have established that firearms purchased at gun shows in northeastern states account for a hugely disproportionate share of firearms used in crimes in Toronto. Close the loophole, make the neighbours happy, make yourselves safer. Win-win.

And yet here you are, apparently inferring from this -- or something else (which would be ... what?) that I don't think that people in the US should have firearms.

That's quite a magic trick.

I was asking you a simple question.

And I do have to admire the novel tactic. Instead of asking a "so you think ...?" question that plants the idea in the reader's mind that the person being questioned thinks something s/he doesn't think, yours plants the idea in the reader's mind that the person doesn't truly think something she evidently claims or might claim to think.

I'm so sorry if I'm misreading the subtext. Do you really, really think that The UN should step in and issue a ban on all firearms? Do you really, really have some notion to advance as to just how the UN might go about "stepping in" thus?

And what, pray, are your thoughts on Jack's thoughts? You posted the story; have you no thoughts about it?

[MikeyMoore]

34. I believe you are overanalyzing

I just wanted to know your position. I told you mine, what is yours? To be honest, I am having trouble following your logic.

This is how the UN will begin the goal of disarmament - http://disarmament.un.org:8080/cab/smallarms/
http://www.iansa.org/un/

Make illicit gun production/possession a criminal offence
Establish a national coordination agency on small arms
Identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons
Keep track of officially-held guns
Issue end-user certificates for exports/transit
Notify the original supplier nation of re-export
Disarmament, Demobilisation & Re-integration (DDR) of ex-combatants, including collection and destruction of their weapons
Support regional agreements and encourage moratoria
Mark guns at point of manufacture for identification and tracing
Maintain records of gun manufacture
Engage in more information exchange
Ensure better enforcement of arms embargoes
Include civil society organisations in efforts to prevent small arms proliferation


And I told you my thoughts on the article already, I think civilian ownership of firearms is deplorable and anything that further restricts ownership of these deadly weapons is a step in the right direction.

[iverglas]

38. mm hmm

This is how the UN will begin the goal of disarmament

Well, here we have either question-begging or equivocation, or both.

On the latter, we do know that the "disarmament" referred to in http://disarmament.un.org:8080/ is "the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction". (That's a site worth exploring, of course.) And you will have noticed that the aspect of small arms that the UN Conference addresses is the "ILLICIT TRADE in small arms". Not anything to do with what you're talking about, so far as I can see.

And so, if you're attempting to assert that the UN has a goal of "disarming" everybody in the world, all you've done by referring to how the UN will "begin <working toward?> the goal of disarmament" is beg the question. You haven't established that any such goal exists.

So, how do you feel about the issues ACTUALLY addressed by the UN Conference, and its ACTUAL goals? And the methods ACTUALLY proposed to achieve those ACTUAL goals? The methods you listed; the ones that are meant to be used to address problems like the ones described here:

http://www.un.org/special-rep/children-armed-conflict/English/SmallArms.html

or here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0326-03.htm


And I told you my thoughts on the article already, I think civilian ownership of firearms is deplorable and anything that further restricts ownership of these deadly weapons is a step in the right direction.

Yeah. But you haven't told me why the UN would want to ban civilian ownership of firearms, or how it would do it if it wanted to. You just misrepresented the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects as having something to do with "disarming" civilians.

Oh, and of course you haven't explained what on earth your passion for "anything that further restricts ownership of these deadly weapons" has to do with Jack Layton's campaign proposals.

But heck, maybe someone will follow some of these links and learn something today, eh?

[MikeyMoore]

39. You have to be kidding me

If you don't know the actual goals of the UN, then you are seriously misled. The only reason the Conference was not as strong as it should have been was due to the stubborn stupidity of the US.

http://www.fwr.de/UN%20AP%20Pressemitteilung.htm

Washington made clear from the outset it would oppose any plan that even hinted at interference with civilian ownership. As a result, it insisted on removing a clause asking governments ``to seriously consider legal restrictions on unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light weapons.''

The American resistance to the clause calling on states to consider restrictions on the trade and ownership of small arms angered delegates, who argued the clause would not impact U.S. domestic laws. Human rights groups and antigun campaigners accused the Bush administration of caring more about the powerful U.S. gun lobby than civilians caught in war.

[iverglas]

42. oh, c'mon

If you don't know the actual goals of the UN, then you are seriously misled.

Enlighten me. You seem to know so much more than I do, and to be so unwilling to share it. That bit you pasted just didn't increase my knowledge of "the actual goals of the UN", I'm afraid. More, please.

[iverglas]

46. aaaw

I guess I'll just have to read all about it elsewhere. :(

And be (wholly unfairly!) blamed for it, no doubt ...

[Liberal Classic]

37. Isn't this a semantic niggle?

who blamed anyone? Identifying the root of a problem is quite a different process from blaming someone/something for it.

To me, this seems to be splitting hairs. Blame is defined as holding responsible, or finding fault.

Blaming someone for something means never having to take responsibility for doing anything about it. It's their fault! (And if we punish them, everything will be cool.)

I don't agree with your definition of blame. Blame is nothing more than censure and condemnation. That some people abdicate responsibility and blame others for their problems doesn't mean blame isn't the right word in this situation.

A better question might be does blame as you define it here apply?


The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States,


Clearly Mr. Layton (New Democratic Party prime ministerial candidate?) is laying fault on the U.S. To continue...

and an NDP government would lobby the Americans for better gun control south of the border to improve things in this country, Jack Layton said Thursday.

In other words, since the root of Canada's gun problems are in the U.S. the solution is likewise with the U.S.

"What we are focusing on is the increasing evidence that the biggest problem is illegal guns coming in from the U.S.," Layton told reporters. "We're proposing going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun-control laws in the U.S. strengthened."


Here, Mr. Layton qualifies his statements somewhat. From reading this news article, it seems clear to me that blame is not an incorrect word in the least. It is entirely appropriate.

Please note what I have not said. I have not said that such blame is wrong or misplaced, or that the U.S. couldn't do more to help its northern neighbor. Nor have I said Mr. Layton statements mean he is trying to absolve Canada of any responsibility in controlling its side of the border.

Layton said his party would provide more support for port police and other border security programs. He also wants tougher penalties for those who import guns illegally.

Just as I noted above.

In conclusion, I believe blame is not the wrong word.

Now, let's see about your definition of it.


Canadians have a problem: illegally imported firearms are being too widely used to cause harm in Canada.


Let us not mince words, please. These are smuggled weapons bound for nefarious purposes. "Illegally imported" implies to me some duty was not paid or some error in paperwork is holding them at customs. The most likely buyer for a black market weapon is not a collector or sportsman, but a criminal. These weapons are going to equip drug smugglers, another problem the U.S. and Canada share along with a border, to further their criminal enterprises.

In my opinion, I do not see these statements by Mr. Layton are significantly different that some our officials make with regard to smuggling across the U.S. border with Mexico. Often our politicians will say "only if Mexico would enact such-and-such reform, our drug problem will be less" or "if Mexico held up its end of agreements" and things like that.

And since the root of that problem lies outside Canada, it makes perfect sense to go to the owner of the root and seek its cooperation.

I do not totally agree with this statement. The root of the problem does not lie wholly outside of Canada, just as the problems of drug abuse in the U.S. does not lie wholly outside the U.S.

The root cause is more complex, as you note:

The demand problem can be addressed by taking measures to reduce all the factors that lead to criminal activity: poverty, racism, lack of decent affordable housing, lack of access to training and employment, etc. etc. etc. Doing those things is, in fact, the entire thrust of Layton's party platform. But the demand can't be eliminated overnight, no matter how many more social housing units the NDP built if it came to power, or how many student grants it offered.

Certianly, the problems of drug and gun smuggling is more complex than one facet of U.S. law.

[iverglas]

41. indeed

I don't agree with your definition of blame. Blame is nothing more than censure and condemnation.

And if you think that "censure and condemnation" is an apt description of what Jack Layton said, you're going to have to present something to support that theory.

You've pretty much made my point right there.

Layton proposes to lobby the US to make changes in its policies and practices.

If my neighbour had no idea that his/her dandelions were infecting my lawn, it might be wise of me to explain the problem and seek a joint resolution for it. Censuring and condemning my neighbour might be both inappropriate (my neighbour might be blind, or his/her own lawn might be getting infected from somewhere else, or his/her landlord might have prohibited him/her from killing dandelions) and really counter-productive.

Clearly Mr. Layton (New Democratic Party prime ministerial candidate?) is laying fault on the U.S. To continue...
and an NDP government would lobby the Americans for better gun control south of the border to improve things in this country, Jack Layton said Thursday.
In other words, since the root of Canada's gun problems are in the U.S. the solution is likewise with the U.S.

Nope, I just don't see "laying fault". I know it's really hard for a lot of USAmericans to see the difference between blaming and problem-solving, as I've noted before, but there really is a difference.

Jack has identified a source of a problem. He proposes to attempt to do something about it. Asking the US to do something to address the elements of the problem that are caused by its action/inaction is *not* the same as blaming or laying fault on the US.

Here, Mr. Layton qualifies his statements somewhat. From reading this news article, it seems clear to me that blame is not an incorrect word in the least. It is entirely appropriate.

It would be appropriate IF you had identified somewhere where Jack said the US is doing something bad. He did NOT say that.

If my neighbour had sown a bag of wildflower seeds that turned out to be half dandelions, the neighbour's actions would be a cause of my dandelion problem. The neighbour would have done nothing bad, and I would not blame my neighbour for my problem. I would seek the neighbour's cooperation in solving it.

US policies, which may be in no way bad in themselves, are a cause of problems in Canada. There may be no fault at all in the US's actions and policies. Those actions and policies could still cause problems in Canada.

Let us not mince words, please. These are smuggled weapons bound for nefarious purposes. "Illegally imported" implies to me some duty was not paid or some error in paperwork is holding them at customs.

But I'm famous for mincing words. "Illegally imported" is the technically correct term, actually used to describe these firearms, by those whose work involves referring to them. I had no ulterior motive in using it, I simply used the term that is widely and correctly used.

The most likely buyer for a black market weapon is not a collector or sportsman, but a criminal. These weapons are going to equip drug smugglers, another problem the U.S. and Canada share along with a border, to further their criminal enterprises.

Yuppers. As I in fact said: "law-abiding gun owners" are not the market for these turkeys.

In my opinion, I do not see these statements by Mr. Layton are significantly different that some our officials make with regard to smuggling across the U.S. border with Mexico. Often our politicians will say "only if Mexico would enact such-and-such reform, our drug problem will be less" or "if Mexico held up its end of agreements" and things like that.

And you don't think so?

Surely the obvious difference, however, is that Mexico *can't* hold up its end of the agreement, etc. The huge economic disparity between Mexico and the US and the huge and insatiable market for drugs in the US make it inevitable that people in Mexico will want to supply that market. (Perhaps the people further south who I assume are the original source of that supply in many cases should be included in the equation.) Mexico just doesn't have the means to reduce the supply originating in Mexico, or passing through Mexico. There is no deterrent to desperation. The only real way to reduce the supply is to offer incentives for other activities, not to try to impose disincentives for that one.

There simply is no huge and insatiable market for illicit firearms in Canada, and there are no desperately poor people in the US who cannot be deterred from supplying it. The US does have the means to reduce the supply.

In the case of Mexico and drugs entering the US, it just isn't a matter of political will. In the case of the US and firearms entering Canada, it is.

I do not totally agree with this statement. The root of the problem does not lie wholly outside of Canada, just as the problems of drug abuse in the U.S. does not lie wholly outside the U.S.

The source of the illegally imported firearms lies entirely outside Canada, by definition. To try to solve the problem without acting on the source would be, as I said, an expensive finger in a porous dike.

The root cause of crime, and the demand for the firearms, is indeed complex. The root cause of the supply of firearms is a good deal simpler.

Whatever became of the US right wing's fondness for supply-side economics?? Surely the Bush administration and its friends should understand that what we have here is a trickle-down situation, and that in this case what's trickling down isn't actually something that the people at the bottom want.

Certianly, the problems of drug and gun smuggling is more complex than one facet of U.S. law.

And as you've acknowledged, nobody has said that they aren't!

I still don't know what earthly sense it makes to enable any criminal in Canada, in the non-utopian reality of the here and now, to get hold of a firearm simply by having somebody pick one up for him/her at a gun show in the US and drive it over the bridge. Demand will not be eliminated in our lifetimes; should we just throw up our hands and do nothing to reduce supply?

You do realize that if every car entering Canada were searched for illicit firearms, Florida's economy would crash.

[Liberal Classic]

44. Thanks for the nice reply

"I don't agree with your definition of blame. Blame is nothing more than censure and condemnation."

And if you think that "censure and condemnation" is an apt description of what Jack Layton said, you're going to have to present something to support that theory.

I also wrote "Blame is defined as holding responsible, or finding fault." These definitions were taken from the dictionary.

This is exactly what Mr. Layton does when he characterizes this problem as "The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States."

How is this not finding fault or holding responsible?

This is why I replied to your post, saying that you are splitting hairs.

I still believe you are splitting hairs when you say Mr. Layton does not blame the U.S. Of course he is blaming the U.S.


Nope, I just don't see "laying fault". I know it's really hard for a lot of USAmericans to see the difference between blaming and problem-solving, as I've noted before, but there really is a difference.


Now you're saying I can't understand the difference because I'm a United Stateian?

Good grief!


Jack has identified a source of a problem. He proposes to attempt to do something about it. Asking the US to do something to address the elements of the problem that are caused by its action/inaction is *not* the same as blaming or laying fault on the US.

If Mr. Layton did not hold the U.S. responsible for the "increasing evidence that the biggest problem is illegal guns coming in from the U.S." I will eat my hat.

I support his call for increase border security, that's a good idea in this day and age. I have no truck with his calls for increased social spending.

In fact, I'm really not debating what Mr. Layton says, but rather what you said.


It would be appropriate IF you had identified somewhere where Jack said the US is doing something bad. He did NOT say that...
US policies, which may be in no way bad in themselves, are a cause of problems in Canada. There may be no fault at all in the US's actions and policies. Those actions and policies could still cause problems in Canada.

On the contrary. What the U.S. is "doing bad" should be no mystery to anyone who posts in this forum.

The bad action is the U.S. apparent lack of attention to smuggling across its northern border. Many find another bad action to be the U.S. general policies towards private ownership of weapons, which then find their way into Canada. Lack of enforcement of U.S. law can also be made an issue. You name it. Mr. Layton clearly identifies the U.S. as the source of the problem. What is the problem? The lack of gun control.

Or are United Stateians like me too stupid to read between the lines?


ON EDIT

Hit Post Message too soon.


There simply is no huge and insatiable market for illicit firearms in Canada

There must be a demand for black-market weapons, were there no demand, this wouldn't be an issue.

I am glad that we can agree that gun smuggling is related to organized crime.

Does Canada have a market for illegal drugs? I believe the answer is simply, yes.

Surely the obvious difference, however, is that Mexico *can't* hold up its end of the agreement, etc. The huge economic disparity between Mexico and the US and the huge and insatiable market for drugs in the US make it inevitable that people in Mexico will want to supply that market. (Perhaps the people further south who I assume are the original source of that supply in many cases should be included in the equation.) Mexico just doesn't have the means to reduce the supply originating in Mexico, or passing through Mexico. There is no deterrent to desperation. The only real way to reduce the supply is to offer incentives for other activities, not to try to impose disincentives for that one.


This was a good paragraph. Well argued that Mexico has a difficult time patrolling own borders. Sometimes the problem stems from more than simple economic disparity, unfortunately there is a good deal of corruption in Mexican law enforcement which exaberbates the issue.

Another good point is that nations further south should be taken into consideration. Though Mexico is used for a lot of smuggling, much smuggling comes through the Caribbean. A large fraction of the opiates coming into the U.S. from China actually pass through Canada to get here.

Again we come back to demand. Without demand there'd be no supply. This is why alternative crop programs work so ineffectively in places like poor regions of Columbia. The economic incentive is overwhelming.

I agree there is little deterrent to desperation.

However, even if the economic situation improves for Mexico and Columbia, will that have any real impact on drug smuggling?

I do not believe so.


The source of the illegally imported firearms lies entirely outside Canada, by definition.

This is tautological. And as tautologies usually are, not particularly helpful. If organized crime was not active, there wouldn't be the same political issue.


You do realize that if every car entering Canada were searched for illicit firearms, Florida's economy would crash.

Now you're playing the blame game. ;)

[iverglas]

45. why bother talking?

On the contrary. What the U.S. is "doing bad" should be no mystery to anyone who posts in this forum.

The bad action is the U.S. apparent lack of attention to smuggling across its northern border. Many find another bad action to be the U.S. general policies towards private ownership of weapons, which then find their way into Canada. Lack of enforcement of U.S. law can also be made an issue. You name it. Mr. Layton clearly identifies the U.S. as the source of the problem. What is the problem? The lack of gun control.

Or are United Stateians like me too stupid to read between the lines?

You apparently already know it all.

The specific factor that is at the root of much of the illegal importation of firearms into Canada appears -- to those who know what they're talking about -- to be the lack of regulation of firearms sales, most particularly at gun shows in some states handy to Canada, in the US.

You're the one saying all the other stuff.

This is from the report I have alluded to in the recent past, based on the investigations done by just such people:

http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf
(starting at page 13 of these minutes of the Police Services Board; I recommend reading it all)

At its meeting of August 14, 2003, the Board requested that the Chief of Police report on the use of illegally imported firearms in Toronto crime; and whether there are initiatives that may be undertaken, in co-operation with the Federal government and possibly weapons manufacturers, to curb the illegal importation of firearms into Canada, from the United States (Board Minute No. P230/03 refer). This report will identify the nature and origin of known firearms used in Toronto crime, and provide a summary of actions currently undertaken by this Service to manage this issue.

The issue of illegally imported firearms, and indeed any firearm being used in the commission of criminal acts in the City of Toronto is of a paramount concern. I have requested the Special Investigation Services Firearms Enforcement Unit to research the issue of illegally imported firearms.

It is apparent, as identified in the attached report Appendix A, that although smuggled firearms have been positively identified as crime guns, there is an emerging trend toward the use of firearms of domestic origin by the criminal element. As set out in page 2 of Appendix A, only 24% of traceable crime guns have been traced to a United States origin. Initiatives developed through the Canada/United States Cross Border Crime Forum (set out on pages 5-7 of Appendix A); will assist all law enforcement efforts in reducing the number of firearms entering this country from the United States and help reduce the tragic human toll often associated with them.

This Service must continue to focus investigative efforts on illegally imported firearms, but must also give greater investigative emphasis to domestic crime guns. These firearms are being obtained in increasing numbers from residential and commercial break and enters as well as through diversion from manufacturers and apparent exploitation of the de-registration processes in place within the Canadian Firearms Registry System.

Interdicting these sources for domestic crime guns is within our capacity as a Canadian law enforcement agency. The collaborative initiatives set out in Appendix A, undertaken in partnership with all levels of government and other stakeholders will aid in restricting the opportunity for lawful Canadian firearms to fall prey to the criminal intention to convert them for use against citizens of the City of Toronto. Further, the plea-bargaining of firearm related crimes (set out on page 9 of Appendix A), must be discontinued in an effort to reaffirm the commitment of the criminal justice system to the protection of the public and therein re-establish public confidence and sense of safety and security.

... Although there are a number of firearms reportedly used in various criminal acts each year in the City of Toronto, these firearms do not routinely come into the possession of the police for examination and origin determination. Handguns are the preferred weapons for use in the commission of criminal acts. This preference is clearly represented in Toronto Police Service records for the period of 1998 to August 30, 2003, wherein there have been 325 homicides in Toronto, 133 involving the use of a firearm. Of this total, 124 murders, or 93% of firearm involved homicides, involved the use of a handgun. Nine homicides involved the use of a rifle or shotgun.

... Toronto Police Service records show that in the period of January 01st to September 9th, 2003 a total of 1468 firearms have been submitted to the Property Evidence Management Unit for a variety of reasons, including evidence, held for investigation, safekeeping and destruction. Of these, 183 have been determined to meet the definition of a crime gun. It is this number, one hundred and eighty-three (183) crime guns, that presents the only opportunity for analysis to determine how many smuggled firearms are actually used in Toronto crime. The Gang and Gun Task Force have determined that one hundred and thirty-nine (139) of these crime guns fall into the following categories:
- 26 long barrelled firearms
- 11 firearms registered in Canada
- 5 reported as stolen
- 4 firearms were never issued a serial number by manufacturer
- 16 were too old to be traced for ownership
- 32 had their serial numbers obliterated
- 45 are still under investigation

Investigative experience of the Gun and Gang Task Force and the Firearms Enforcement Unit has established that long barrelled firearms are primarily of Canadian origin. Long barrelled weapons are historically stolen from private citizens and converted for use in criminal acts. For this reason, long barrelled crime guns are not automatically submitted for tracing. Firearms with obliterated serial numbers have been historically believed to be of United States origin. A recent Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (PWEU) investigation has shed light on this historical assumption and it is now believed that these types of firearms may also be of Canadian origin.

Local investigations suggest that many of the 32 crime guns with obliterated serial numbers are of Canadian origin. Investigations have identified that criminals are well aware of the absence of legislation requiring the registering of firearms in the United States. Armed with this knowledge they have developed a sense of confidence that the firearm will not be successfully traced back to them so there is less concern over removing the serial number. Efforts are currently underway to determine the origin of some 26 firearms seized in relation to a recent investigation. It is suspected that the majority of these firearms will be traced to a Canadian source.

The remaining forty-four (44) of the one hundred and eighty-three (183) crime guns have been submitted for tracing to the United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). To date 30 of the 44 submitted guns have been traced to a United States based first retail purchaser. Therefore, assuming that all 44 submitted guns are successfully traced to a United States origin, only 24% of traceable known crime guns, as previously defined, have been smuggled into Canada. The origin of all other firearms that have been used in reported criminal acts but have eluded recovery is subject to conjecture.

While the use of smuggled firearms is a continuing concern, the aforesaid numbers identify an emerging issue for law enforcement agencies and that is the trafficking in domestic firearms and their subsequent use in criminal acts. The Firearms Enforcement Unit of Special Investigation Services, in partnership with the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit, recognize this emerging issue and have directed significant attention toward it in conjunction with efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms. Examples of some of these collaborative efforts are detailed under the INITIATIVES section of this report.

The nature and scope of firearms trafficking, domestic and international, is beyond the investigative capacity of any one particular agency. In order to provide a more co-ordinated investigative effort in the Province of Ontario the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (PWEU) was formed. This unit was established in 1994 to identify and take enforcement action against persons involved in the illegal movement of firearms, ammunition and explosives. The PWEU is comprised of forty-one representatives drawn from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto Police Service, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and a number of other municipal police services in Ontario.

... In 1994, Criminal Intelligence Services of Ontario, in response to policing standards mandating that all police services in Ontario trace seized firearms not registered in Canada, created the Firearms Tracing and Enforcement Program (FATE). The purpose of this program is to identify the sources of illegal firearms and to provide an investigative tool to the police services of the Province in identifying potential firearm traffickers. The program operates through the PWEU and works in a voluntary partnership, called the Collateral Investigations Program, with the BATFE to identify and prosecute persons involved in the illegal movement and trafficking of crime guns. There is no formal agreement in place between the respective agencies for the tracing of firearms. This partnership has been very successful given that it is solely based on good will and a solid spirit of teamwork and public protection on both sides of the border.

The tracing of a firearm can be quite complex. In Canada a firearm can be traced to the last registered owner as recorded by the Canadian Firearms Registry System (CFRS). There is no requirement in the majority of American states to register firearms. Therefore, the BATFE rely upon access to records that may only identify the first retail purchaser of that firearm. Any transactions subsequent to the original retail purchase in the United States are extremely difficult to account for. Agents from the BATFE must spend countless hours conducting investigations, locating documents and interviewing persons in order to provide investigators in Ontario with trace information.

Okay, here's the meat of it:

This voluntary program utilizes the information obtained from the FATE Program to conduct collateral investigations between the U.S. BATFE, the PWEU and other law enforcement agencies in Ontario to aggressively pursue the sources of crime guns arriving in Ontario from the United States. These investigations have identified several patterns and trends, which identify the methods of obtaining crime guns in the United States and smuggling them into Canada. The following are some recent trends:

- United States resident receives a licence as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), lawfully acquires inexpensive firearms and then sells them for a large profit into the illicit crime gun market.

- Cross border truckers acquire firearms in the United States and smuggle them into Canada.

- Firearms are purchased at gun shows (secondary markets) in the United States and then smuggled into Canada.

- Canadian citizens obtain U.S. identification, purchase firearms and then smuggle them into Canada.

- STRAW purchases of firearms by U.S. residents, which are then smuggled into Canada. A STRAW purchase occurs when a person such as a convicted felon or a non-resident of the United States or one who is not otherwise entitled to lawfully purchase a firearm in the United States enlists the aid of a third party to lawfully purchase a firearm. This is done in order to conceal the identity of the true purchaser. Firearms so purchased are often smuggled into Canada.

Keep in mind that Jack Layton was a long-standing member of Toronto city council until he was elected national leader of the NDP just over a year ago. (His wife is still a Toronto city councillor, now also running federally for the NDP.) He's obviously familiar with all these facts and with the work being done in the area.

It doesn't actually look like anyone in Canada is "blaming" the US for firearms crime in Canada, or sitting around doing nothing and demanding that the US do something about it.

Nonetheless, the FACT is that "24% of traceable known crime guns" in Toronto were smuggled into Canada. One in four. That isn't exactly negligible. It is A cause of the problem of firearms crime/violence.

I wonder how folks in the US would feel if one of every four firearms used in crimes in their cities had been obtained by criminals from someplace where, apparently, nobody cared who got them and what they used them for in the US?

[Liberal Classic]

47. Who likes being condescended to?

I know it's really hard for a lot of USAmericans to see the difference between blaming and problem-solving, as I've noted before, but there really is a difference.

If I have insulted you in such a way that you feel the need to reply like so, then I am sorry.

:(

If by "Why bother talking" you believe it to be a pointless excercise, what can I say? I am not trying to trick you with semantic games. I am not trying to mock or ridicule you. No one likes to be condescended to, but I strongly believe the above statement deserved a 'good grief' reply.


Back to the subject at hand...


- United States resident receives a licence as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), lawfully acquires inexpensive firearms and then sells them for a large profit into the illicit crime gun market.

- Cross border truckers acquire firearms in the United States and smuggle them into Canada.

- Firearms are purchased at gun shows (secondary markets) in the United States and then smuggled into Canada.

- Canadian citizens obtain U.S. identification, purchase firearms and then smuggle them into Canada.

- STRAW purchases of firearms by U.S. residents, which are then smuggled into Canada.


These are good examples, thanks for posting them.

There seem to be two basic types of categories. Under one type, a weapon is acquired illegally in the U.S. and in the other the weapon appears to be a legal purchase. Numbers 2,4, and 5 are of the first type, and 1 and 3 are the second type. I shouldn't have to note but I will that all these curcumstances break U.S. federal law dealing with conspiricy to smuggle.

Nothing I have said should imply U.S. law enforcement could not use improvement in this area or generally. In trying to keep this thread based in facts, here's a page I found from the Canadian government generally on the topic of smuggling.

Criminal Intelligence Service Canada annual reports:

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/WebPage/index_b.htm

This one specifically had to do with various types of contraband:

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/AnnualReport2001/Cisc2001/contraband2001.html

The conclusion to me is that the border between the U.S. and Canada is extremely porous too all kinds of contraband, not just firearms. Also organized crime is growing in Canada, and though not reflected in this report it is on the rise in the U.S. as well.

I believe what we have is a mutual problem or border security.

[FatSlob]

30. I thought the problem was the criminals. nt

[mosin]

40. Criminals!

That gives me a great idea. Let's make crime illegal! That would surely stop it. :eyes:

[iverglas]

43. gosh

Let's make crime illegal! That would surely stop it.

I guess you're not one of the "enforce the existing laws!" brigade, eh?

Making it illegal to sell firearms at a gun show without a background check might not stop people from doing it ... but having law enforcement types there ready to enforce the law just might. D'ya think?

[mosin]

48. "existing laws"

I believe there are already too many federal gun laws. I don't know how to find it, but I loved the comic that MrBenchley posted a few weeks ago on the subject. It was intended as a slap at the NRA, but I took it as a compliment. I should have saved it.

Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate private sales of firearms between residents of the same state. There's no dealer involved. There's no interstate commerce involved. There's a reason why they haven't tried this in the past. The Gun Control Act of 1968 already pushed it about as far as they could, regulating dealers and prohibiting private interstate sales of firearms. In the wake of Lopez, they stand a good chance of being slapped down by the federal courts if they try to regulate private intrastate sales at the federal level.