Thieves took two days to break open a safe to steal at least 32 guns

[applegrove]

Fugitive in paradise
Thieves took two days to break open a safe to steal at least 32 guns
Collector lost $40,000 in firearms
`I'm shattered,' he says of shootings
Jan. 7, 2006. 10:23 AM
BETSY POWELL, DALE BRAZAO AND JOHN DUNCANSON
STAFF REPORTERS - Toronto Star


"ORLANDO, FLA.-Dozens of high-powered weapons that have flooded Toronto streets were stolen from a well-known gun collector and firearms instructor who kept his dangerous stash in a subsidized housing apartment in Scarborough.

One of the guns taken from the apartment was used last September in one of the worst bloodbaths in the history of Toronto - a triple murder near the end of the Summer of the Gun, in a year marked by the worst gun violence the city has seen. Today, the collector, Mike Hargreaves, is a fugitive from Canadian justice, living in a modest, two-storey stucco home a few kilometres from Disney World. Many of the 32 to 35 guns stolen from his Toronto apartment (machine guns, Glock handguns and assault rifles) are still on the streets.

Though he once had many friends on the Toronto police force (Hargreaves was the man who successfully lobbied the force during the early 1990s to adopt the Glock semi-automatic handgun as its standard issue), that same force has a warrant out for his arrest, alleging his arsenal was improperly stored.

..... SNIP"

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136589011741&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&pubid=968163964505

[Kagemusha]

1. And this is the basis for the anti-gun collector hysteria in Canada.

Serious.

[applegrove]

3. Every gun counts. Cause every life does.

[iverglas]

8. since you appear to be in Canada

one might think that you'd have something more factual to say.

Seriously.

[Kagemusha]

9. It's ridiculous on its face. I didn't need to say more.

I'm not a particularly pro-gun person but I know the strictness of the relevant laws; I find the idea of a massive crime spree based on robbing gun collectors to be ridiculous and a cheap political stunt, particularly since last I heard, the sitting Canadian government's plan for gun control includes uprooting the "collectors" while allowing target shooting to thrive. There's more guns in target shooting than collecting; also, those guns tend to be modern and include lots and lots of handguns. So why spare them?

So you've had your fun gloating that I had nothing to say, and now I've had my non-fun showing how I did, but that it wasn't really necessary to say in the first place. I hope you're happy.

[applegrove]

11. Target shooters can store their guns in safe sites. They may not have

as many as collectors. And if a province doesn't have the hand-gun violence... they can opt out.

Half the guns in Canada are stolen from Canadian owners. Apparently the other half come across the border.

Calling me names? a "gloater". Why can we never stay on topic.

[iverglas]

12. try again

What you said was:

And this is the basis for the anti-gun collector hysteria in Canada.

I said you might have had something more factual to say -- because what you said was NOT factual.

This is only one of the firearm collection thefts that have put large numbers of firearms in the hands of people who have used to them to commit crimes and cause deaths in very recent years.

There may well be "hysteria" in this respect, but not everyone who sees a perfectly clear connection between stolen gun collections and the killings of, and crimes committed against, members of the public is "hysterical".

I know the strictness of the relevant laws

Do you really? Perhaps you could tell us how someone becomes a "gun collector" in Canada.

There's more guns in target shooting than collecting; also, those guns tend to be modern and include lots and lots of handguns. So why spare them?

Gee. I wonder whether it might be because sport shooters' firearms haven't been getting stolen, and used in crime and homicides, in quite such large numbers as firearms collectors' have.

There are quite possibly more guns in target shooting than in collecting -- but they don't usually involve "lots and lots of handguns" in one place, for starters. And they really don't generally involve semi-automatic handguns such as were taken in the theft under discussion.

And they aren't generally stored in vacant apartments in high-rise buildings in high-crime areas of cities.

And target shooters aren't generally high-profile gun nuts like the individual in this case, leading one to suspect that would-be gun thieves might not be quite so familiar with their activities and possessions and whereabouts.

Git yer red hot facts here:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/angus_rpt_e.asp

Among the three main firearm ownership segments - households which own a rifle, those which have a shotgun, and those which possess a handgun - the survey results show that multiple firearm ownership is most common among households which own a handgun. While an estimated 17 percent (or approximately 1 in 5) of all firearm-owning households in Canada own five or more firearms, this is characteristic of almost one-half (46%) of households which own a handgun. In contrast, it is estimated that only around two in ten of those households which own a rifle (22%) and those possessing a shotgun (21%) have at least five firearms.

... REASON FOR OWERSHIP: <all firearms types, in %>

Target - 60
Hunting - 50
Collecting - 38
Employment - 75
Self-protection** - 52

("Self-protection" is not a valid reason for acquiring a handgun in Canada, except in extremely unusual cases. Almost everyone who reports owning a handgun for "self-protection" would actually have had to state and show a different legitimate reason for acquiring it, if s/he owns it legally. Reasons do not have to be given for acquiring ordinary long arms; one simply needs a licence.)

Reasons for owning handguns specifically (in %):

Target shooting - 41
Collecting - 32
Employment - 15
Self-protection* - 5
Hunting - 5

Reasons for handgun ownership are not uniform across the country. Target shooting is the primary reason for owning a handgun among half of all such households in British Columbia, Alberta and the Atlantic provinces. In Manitoba-Saskatchewan and Ontario, handgun-owning households are roughly divided between target shooting and collecting, with an even split between these two reasons in Yukon/NWT. Reasons for owning a handgun are divided further still among Quebec households with handguns: one-quarter own this firearm mainly for target shooting, one in five (20%) for collecting, and three in ten (30%) for employment purposes (considerably higher than households elsewhere in Canada); households from this province are also the most likely to own handguns for the respondent-volunteered reason of self-protection (14%).

While the survey apparently did not break down number of handguns owned by reason for ownership (target shooting vs. collecting), it's fairly evident that there are large numbers of handguns in the hands of "collectors", and I'm not seeing any reason to think there are more in the hands of target shooters than in the hands of collectors -- and specifically, that there are more handguns per capita in the former case than in the latter.

But perhaps you have information to show otherwise and support the assertion that there are more handguns in the hands of target shooters than in the hands of collectors, which seems to be what you wanted to say.

Your misinformed state is not unexpected, and not uncommon among us Canadians. A lot of us think that it's "illegal" to own a handgun, or that handguns are "banned". Few people have any idea how many of them are kicking around the cities they live in.

So you've had non-fun saying nothing meaningful again. Too bad.


I find the idea of a massive crime spree based on robbing gun collectors to be ridiculous and a cheap political stunt

Since just about everything a Liberal does is a cheap political stunt, you won't actually get any argument from me in that respect.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060107/GUNS07/TPNational/Toronto

Toronto police data recently obtained by Prof. Cukier suggested that roughly half the handguns seized and identified as "potential crime weapons" in 2004 had been smuggled across the border.

The rest had been stolen from legitimate owners and gun shops, which between them account for up to 3,000 weapons reported stolen each year. In a six-week period last year, at least 84 firearms were stolen from Toronto-area homes, Prof. Cukier found. More than half were handguns, and at least one of them was used in a Toronto slaying.

http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=5107
(reproduction of National Post article; I cite both primary and secondary source only for these verifiable facts)

Police have also speculated a theft in June of 46 handguns, along with three rifles and ammunition, from a collector in Port Hope, 100 kilometres east of the city, has contributed to the recent increase in shootings.

Know many target shooters with 46 handguns?

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/guns20051228.html

"We know, for example, that in Toronto two years ago there was a theft of a number of guns from a legal owner in Malvern," said Miller, by telephone from his family vacation in Spain. "Twelve of which were recovered later by police at crime scenes."

Add those two to Hargreaves' little loss, and we have three quite large hauls from only three "collectors".

http://www.dose.ca/toronto/news/story.html?s_id=OuIk%2Bkna/Uio9J9nfnZ9DyEpcPv0gzubaXV7Phy0FgfVYEGMcqnRZg==

Martin pledged to tighten border security, but said "the largest single source" of handguns is theft from collectors.

I don't actually swallow everything that spills from Martin's lips, but I'm not sure why he'd make that up.

I would indeed like to know the breakdown, in thefts like these, among sports shooters, collectors, etc. If you know it, or know anything else to suggest that thefts from target shooters are causing quite this level of problem, do enlighten us.

[Kagemusha]

14. Ok, two things here for the record...

- The 'gloating' comment was meant solely at iverglas.

- I thought it was common undisputed knowledge that the main source of handguns in Canada was border smuggling.

Now perhaps I'm seriously misinformed about the ease of smuggling or I have vastly underestimated the cheapness of Canadian criminals. I didn't think it was THAT hard to simply buy a smuggled handgun that somehow there'd be a demand for going after collectors to this degree.

...As for asking me to quote chapter and verse from the gun laws referring to collectors, give it a rest. I'm only familiar with non-collectors, personally - I'm not that into guns. I don't need to be in order to understand that you have to jump through a lot of regulatory hoops. Some people do jump through them. Most people can't be bothered. In other words, I have layman level knowledge of the situation. If, to use a Neocon phrase, that weakness is provocative to you, then I apologize. I didn't mean to provoke you into lording it over me that you trust Martin this much and I can't possibly know anything unless I have exact crime statistics to refute him. Whatever.

Edit: They call that the reliance on authority fallacy or something. Well fine. My authority is too ordinary to be arguing.

[iverglas]

15. "regulatory hoops"

As for asking me to quote chapter and verse from the gun laws referring to collectors, give it a rest. I'm only familiar with non-collectors, personally - I'm not that into guns. I don't need to be in order to understand that you have to jump through a lot of regulatory hoops.

As I said, I'm not surprised that you aren't familiar with either the rules or the facts regarding firearms collecting in Canada. Most people aren't. Sadly, many people don't inform themselves before doing things like voting.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/whole.html

28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) or the importation by an individual of a restricted firearm under paragraph 40(1)(c) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied

... (b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is

... (ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.


30. The criteria referred to in subparagraph 28(b)(ii) are that the individual

(a) has knowledge of the historical, technological or scientific characteristics that relate or distinguish the restricted firearms or handguns that he or she possesses;

(b) has consented to the periodic inspection, conducted in a reasonable manner, of the premises in which the restricted firearms or handguns are to be kept; and

(c) has complied with such other requirements as are prescribed respecting knowledge, secure storage and the keeping of records in respect of restricted firearms or handguns.

Looks like you and I could become "collectors" after spending a few days on line reading about firearms and buying a gun safe.

I didn't think it was THAT hard to simply buy a smuggled handgun that somehow there'd be a demand for going after collectors to this degree.

When you can get 3 or 4 dozen desirable firearms in one fell swoop for free (or the cost of a blowtorch) -- in the case in point, worth $40,000 -- why go to the trouble/risk of smuggling or the expense of buying smuggled?

I didn't mean to provoke you into lording it over me that you trust Martin this much

Ah, and I didn't mean to say that you hadn't stopped beating your dog.

You'll have to tell me what logic books you studied that made it possible for you to conclude from what I actually said -- "Since just about everything a Liberal does is a cheap political stunt" -- that I "trust Martin this much". I could use a resource like that.

Of course you're right. Someone who has not voted Liberal federally in over three decades of voting (voted Liberal strategically in one provincial election to vote against the Harris Tories, and voted PC strategically about 30 years ago to vote against the Trudeau Liberals), and was an NDP candidate in 3 elections, obviously places her unquestioning trust in Paul Martin. You must have a window to my soul!

In other words, I have layman level knowledge of the situation. If, to use a Neocon phrase, that weakness is provocative to you, then I apologize.

I really couldn't care less what you know about anything, and your ignorance didn't provoke anything at all, so no need to apologize. Your decision to make disparaging remarks about people who disagree with you -- "this is the basis for the anti-gun collector hysteria in Canada" -- i.e., alleging both that they were irrational and that their response was grounless when in many cases, at least, it isn't, was the problematic bit.

They call that the reliance on authority fallacy or something. Well fine. My authority is too ordinary to be arguing.

Actually, your authority seems to have been your own opinion, and that isn't too "ordinary", it's too not an authority. It's not that you "can't possibly know anything unless <you> have exact crime statistics", it's that you can't possibly have a worthwhile opinion unless you know what you're talking about. And you really shouldn't insult other people for having a contrary opinion when you don't know what you're talking about.

[applegrove]

16. Okay.

[davepc]

2. apparently he just had them laying around his apartment for the taking.

Thieves used sledgehammers and blowtorches to open this 1,700-pound concrete and steel safe at the Gilder Dr. apartment of gun collector and firearms instructor Mike Hargreaves.

Hargreaves was obviously irresponsible with his storage of these firearms.

[applegrove]

4. So - can snowbirds take their guns with them to Florida? Would that

be a plan? Or should they not go on vacation? I mean this guy broke the law. But it shows that the freaks who want guns.. know where to look.

[davepc]

6. if having firearms in a 1700lb safe is considered "improper storage"

complete with alarms and motion sensors, I'd hate to know what proper storage constitutes and how much it costs.

And all in that article, lots of blaming of the owner of the firearms, and nary a word about that actual persons who broke into his apartment, broke into his safe, stole the guns, and sold them on the street.

[iverglas]

10. hmm, I wonder

if having firearms in a 1700lb safe is considered "improper storage"
complete with alarms and motion sensors, I'd hate to know what proper storage constitutes and how much it costs.

Hmmmm. Do alarms and motion sensors that apparently DON'T WORK or are easily disabled count? Or maybe did somebody just hear all the bells and buzzers and not do anything ...

How about the idea that leaving your firearms lying around unattended in an unoccupied apartment in a highrise apartment building in a high-crime area -- where for some bizarre reason the leading lights in the gangs that are the source of much of that crime know they are -- just isn't quite the epitome of "careful", no matter how big and strong a safe they're in?

One might almost say that the thing speaks for itself.

What is proper storage?

How about not in a vacant apartment in a highrise building in a high-crime area with non-functioning security surveillance equipment??

How much does it cost?

Who the hell cares?

More than a half-dozen human lives, maybe?

Do let us know your preferred method of calculation.

[applegrove]

13. I'm not gloating. You are NRA types. I'm fighting you here so I don't

have to fight you in Canada.

[catnhatnh]

5. No Training and No Morals????

THAT'S what "shatters" him????The situation would obviously be better then if they were just better trained??? After all that IS his first complaint...That aside it might be interesting to see who he knows in Toronto...he claims his income qualified him for a low income apartment WHILE he had a 40K gun collection-OK But how does a guy with a low income acquire enough assets to buy a 200K home in Florida???I know mortgage companies are crazy,but not crazy enough to extend credit to a guy without permanent status....

[billbuckhead]

7. 170,000 guns stolen every year in US-Gun owners can't protect their guns

And who says irony is dead? Gun owners can't even protect their own guns and in fact the known possession of a gun attracts bad guys. Press release from Americans for Gun Safety


December 18, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Matt Bennett
202-775-0300 x 212


AMERICANS FOR GUN SAFETY FOUNDATION REPORT SHOWS
170,000 FIREARMS STOLEN EVERY YEAR -

Stolen Guns Flooding Black Market and Fueling Crime;
Huge Variance in Gun Theft by State

Unlocked guns "ripe for the picking" group says

WASHINGTON -- 1,695,482 firearms have been reported stolen to police since 1993, and they are frequently used in later crimes, according to a report released today by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (AGSF).

The AGSF report, entitled Stolen Firearms: Arming the Enemy, found that gun theft is a two-edged problem: for the hundreds of thousands of gun owners and dealers who have been the victims of theft, and for the communities where the nearly 170,000 annual stolen guns end up, fueling the black market and being used in gun crimes. According to the report, six states - Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Georgia - have firearm theft rates of at least twice the national average. California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina had the most firearm thefts over the past 10 years.

AGSF announced that they would begin a public education campaign through licensed gun dealers to encourage gun owners to securely lock and store their firearms in case of theft. In addition, they are suggesting that gun stores and pawnshops be required to run firearm serial numbers through the FBI's Stolen Gun File Registry when they purchase used guns.
-------------------snip--------------------------
http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm

[Jeffersons Ghost]

17. In my humble opinion

Canada has a constitution and I hope they protect it better than we have defended our Bill of Rights.

For those of you who are not familiar with the one in the US, here's a few of them:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

While I hear a great deal about the spin-tyrant violating the Fourth Amendment, I believe his practices also threaten the 5th and 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

In closing, I will say that anyone who seeks to dismantle the Rights so many have died to defend is no better than Bush.

[billbuckhead]

18. The 30,000 that die every year for the second amendment?

It's no accident that the most fascist executive branch and most corrupt congress in American history are also the most progun. It all fits in with the neoCON worldview that all power comes from the barrel of a gun, just like Mao said. Every year the USA leads all advanced nations in murder, gun deaths and gun deaths of children to the tune of 30,000 dead, over 100,000 wounded and over 100 billions of damages, much of which is paid by local government. Who needs Al Queada killing Americans when we have the gun lobby?

No Federal court in recent history has ever turned down a gun regulation. One of the first uses of 2nd amendment based miltia was in 1786 against a citizens revolt called the Shay's rebllion. The miltia were mercenaries paid for by bankers enforcing debtors inprisonment.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion>

Supreme court chief justice Warren Burger said the NRA's version of the second amendment was a fraud.

The Second Amendment in the Courts

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime... ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second>

The ACLU thinks the 2nd amendment means government should have regulation over weapons. <http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html>

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

[benEzra]

21. How about the 100,000 that die annually in defense of the 21st Amendment?

If you want to argue for gun prohibition, I suppose we should bring back alcohol prohibition as well...prohibition ALWAYS works so well at addressing social problems...

:sarcasm:

We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

"We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of the press. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register the press.

Most opponents of press control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to produce and distribute child porn and snuff films. Yet these, like newspapers, magazines, and even email, are press.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict books, magazines, and emails, but how much to restrict them. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

What's the difference?

[billbuckhead]

22. Yeah , you're so much smarter than the ACLU

:sarcasm: No other advanced nation has these absurdly weak gun regulations. America is the exception and the only one with these high murder rates and high incarceration rates.

We do have laws regulating alcohol and they have worked to lower deaths.

We also have laws regulating the first amendment and I think we should have laws against flag burning.

People in successful democracies would rather be free from guns than be a slave to the gun industry.

It's no accident that the most fascist regime in American history and the most corrupt Congress in US history are whores for the gun lobby.

[benEzra]

23. Look closer at the laws involving alcohol...

* Minimum age for possession and use.
* License required for liquor sales.
* Laws against negligent and criminal use.
* Enforcement of laws against misuse.
* Education in responsible use.
* Attempts to provide positive role modeling of responsible alcohol use.

Here's what we DON'T do with alcohol:

* Ban alcoholic beverages outright.
* Ban all alcoholic beverages with more than 10% alcohol content.
* Ban any beverage that comes in a tall, dark-colored bottle (since such beverages "have no nutritional purpose").
* Ban champagne as "the beverage of choice of rapists and drunk drivers."
* Pass laws with the intent of allowing only the wealthy or politically connected to drink alcohol.

Etc.

Alcohol prohibition was tried and didn't work (it actually increased alcohol consumption, particularly of distilled liquors). It was replaced with a responsible-use model that works better without infringing people's ability to purchase and consume the alcohic beverage of their choice. Yes, there is some social cost to this freedom, but the alternative (Prohibition) proved to have an even higher cost.

Gun prohibition wouldn't work any better in this country, as is evidenced by the far-higher-than-average gun misuse rates in jurisdictions that have tried it. We already have laws in place based on the responsible-use model, as with alcohol. Education on responsible use, and enforcement of the laws against misuse, are a better choice, IMHO, and also a much more realistic one.

[billbuckhead]

24. Actually we still have dry counties and alcohol content laws

New York City has done well with stronger gun laws. Japan has virtually no guns and virtually no murders with guns. So it does work.

Alcohol is part of nature and has been used as an intoxicant by humans for thousands of years, but guns are very recent machine that requires a military industrial complex to build and market.

[benEzra]

26. Guns and alcohol...

Actually we still have dry counties and alcohol content laws

Extremely rare, even in places like NC. And I suspect anyone who wants to drink in a "dry" county still drinks...

Japan has virtually no guns and virtually no murders with guns. So it does work.

Japan also has virtually unlimited police powers and a trial conviction rate of NINETY-NINE PERCENT (which has drawn the ire of human-rights groups), as well as a long tradition of absolute subservience to authority. A tradition that does NOT exist in the United States, which ultimately dooms any attempt at widespread Japan-style gun prohibition.

Alcohol is part of nature and has been used as an intoxicant by humans for thousands of years

Distilled beverages haven't; the technology to distill beverages isn't much older than firearms. Liquors and fortified wines didn't exist before distillers were invented. Natural alcoholic beverages can't contain more than 10 to 12 percent alcohol, because the increasing alcohol concentration kills the yeast.

but guns are very recent machine that requires a military industrial complex to build and market.

Guns are hardly "very" recent; they were invented more than half a millenium ago, and there was a thriving gun industry by the late 1400's/early 1500's. The Italian gun manufacturer Beretta, who makes very highly regarded handguns and shotguns, has been in business since 1526, and that's just one company.

As far as requiring a "military industrial complex" to build and market...think again...there is a thriving cottage industry in Afghanistan making shotguns and automatic weapons, including military type AK-47's (real ones, the automatic kind)...designs based on mild steel stampings don't even require tooling to build, just a sheet metal bender. Barrels can be made with four-hundred-year-old technology.

Ammunition is based on simple chemistry that makes meth manufacturing look like PhD-level industrial engineering.

[billbuckhead]

30. Once again you must fall back on a lawless nation to compare

Pathetic that gun "enthusiasts" must go to the worst, most lawless third world nations to make points. If guns made humans free then Afghanistan would be the freest nation in the world.

Also pathetic is the the comparison of Japan to the US in freedom. The gun "enthusiast" crowd bragged about putting the current fascists in power. How about, Ireland, they have few guns and almost no murders with guns? I guess they're better people than Americans also.

Ak-47 is one of the best known brands across the planet. It was promoted around the world by the ex-Soviet empire and now by arms merchants. Once again the worst people in the world are associated with marketing this weapon.

[benEzra]

31. I guess that's one way to dodge the point...

Once again you must fall back on a lawless nation to compare, Pathetic that gun "enthusiasts" must go to the worst, most lawless third world nations to make points. If guns made humans free then Afghanistan would be the freest nation in the world.

You said a "military-industrial complex" is necessary to manufacture firearms, hence a ban on firearm production would not be easily circumvented. I pointed out that people in the Third World make guns at home with hand tools--guns that aren't even legal for civilian sale in the United States--hence your claim was invalid.

[billbuckhead]

32. Lot's of people make wine at home and hardly anyone makes guns

If guns are so easy to make, how come hardly anyone makes them at home like they do wine and beer? Cause they might blow up in a gun "enthusisasts" face? Do you deny the military industrial complex sells guns to consumers and gives money to crooks like Tom DeLay, Puke Cunningham, Roy Blunt, Bob Ney, ad nauseum?

Yeah, I bet those Afghan guns are real safe. Gun "enthusiasts" will say anything to justify their selfish antihuman hobby.

[billbuckhead]

33. Here's a link showing Japan is rated higher in freedom than Israel

I can't find any links showing any of this negative stuff you say about Japan.
Here's a link showing Japan is a very free nation , ranked ahead of Israel. The CIA and the US State Department also rate Japan as very free.
<http://www.mherrera.org/world.htm>

You managed to slander both Japanese and Americans with your ill founded allegations.

[benEzra]

35. Firing from the hip, I see...

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2003/scene_marapr03_matsubara.msp

Trial By Prosecutor: Up against Japan's 99.8 percent conviction rate

By Hiroshi Matsubara

Legal Affairs, March/April 2003

(snip)

In the last decade there has been a mounting call for reform of the Japanese justice system, particularly from the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations...In 1990, a retired high-court judge gave an influential speech that indicted the criminal justice system, citing the nation's 99.8 percent conviction rate as evidence that prosecutors, not courts, decide the fate of criminals. Criminal trials, he declared, are merely "formal ceremonies" en route to conviction...In America, a just outcome is produced through a collision of counteracting components. Police launch an investigation, but the suspect is protected by a sphere of rights. Once a prosecutor decides to try a case, the defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense in a trial overseen by a judge. The final determination is made by a jury whose acquittal cannot be second-guessed.

(snip)

Japan, though it has institutions similar in name, operates quite differently in practice. Prosecutors are vested with tremendous authority, and courts routinely defer to prosecutorial judgment. The prosecutor, in collaboration with law enforcement, is expected not only to enforce the laws but to decide how to use them to serve the public good. He is given far broader powers of investigation than his American counterpart, including the ability to search, seize, and interrogate without the interference of defense counsel. Justice in Japan is often equated to cooperating with the prosecutor.

Even in contested cases, the outcome for defendants is bleak. In American federal courts, about one-fifth of all criminal defendants plead innocent—and of those, one-third are subsequently convicted (state numbers indicate a similar trend). Meanwhile, in Japan, despite the fact that only 7 percent of defendants choose to contest their prosecution, the conviction rate in such instances is still about 99 percent.

Perhaps you'd like to show me the relevant citations from Japanese law that protect the accused from double jeopardy, coerced confessions, and searches without warrants? That will be pretty hard, because there aren't any such protections.

A criminal justice system with no 4th and 5th Amendment protections can be remarkably efficient and produce a remarkably crime-free society, at least in a culture where absolute obedience to authority is a long tradition. It's not something that will work here.

If you support the Japanese approach to criminal justice, then you obviously don't have any problem with the Patriot Act...which gives the gov only a small fraction of the powers that the Japanese government has...

[billbuckhead]

36. You need to apologize to the Japanese

"at least in a culture where absolute obedience to authority is a long tradition." With the world's largest prison population and almost every case plea bargained, it's laughable for the American gun lobby crowd to put down other nations legal system.

Did you ever think maybe Japan does a better job with their criminal justice system like they do most things?

[kenny blankenship]

19. All "illegal" guns that you hear NRA types talk about

as the only connection between guns and crime, start out as legally owned guns.

[benEzra]

20. Machine guns??? Were these lawfully possessed?

Many of the 32 to 35 guns stolen from his Toronto apartment (machine guns, Glock handguns and assault rifles) are still on the streets.

Were these lawfully possessed? I was under the impression that Canada's laws on machine guns weren't any less strict than ours in the U.S., and ours are VERY strict on the possession of automatic weapons. You can go through a process to own one (similar in scope to getting a Secret-level government security clearance), but it takes immense amounts of time and money to do so.

(I'm assuming that "assault rifles" was a Freudian slip for "assault weapons," but "machine guns" is not a similarly ambiguous term...)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Are 32-35 weapons a flood?

It is Canada. :think:

[sofa king]

27. I'm confused.

Ask virtually any potsmoking American what they think of "BC" or "Northern Lights," and they'll tell you, because darned near all of us--I mean them--have smoked dope which was grown in Canada.

On this side of the border we're born with pistols in our hands and a packs of Marlboros tucked between our rosy ass cheeks... but the Canadians have to steal guns from themselves in order to shoot people?

Something is not right here. And no, I'm not high.

[ComerPerro]

28. He has $40,000 worth of guns, but lives in subsidized housing?

:wtf: is wrong with that picture?

And, I can't stop myself from saying:

"You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands! or, I suppose you could wait until I go on vacation, and use the apparent easy access to my apartment to break in and have unlimited access to my safe for over two days. Then you could have my guns"


EDIT: Wow, after reading more carefully, its even more disgusting than I thought when I posted this! He didn't live in the subsidized housing! He used his "low income" status to qualify for this place, so he could use it as cheap storage!

:puke:

[Telly Savalas]

34. .

:rofl:

[ComerPerro]

29. I have no sympathy whatsoever for this guy, after reading the full article

A decade ago, Hargreaves rented unit 1707 at 31 Gilder Dr. - a massive apartment complex run by the Toronto Community Housing Corp. To qualify for an apartment, a person typically has a very low - or no - income (often the person is on welfare). Hargreaves, whose gun consulting office was in Mississauga, used the Gilder Dr. apartment as his "storage facility."

<<<snip>>>

Hargreaves says his income was low enough to qualify for assisted housing.


Ok, see, first off, that sounds like fraud to me. This guy had another home, and used his low income to qualify for subsidized housing so he could have a place to store his guns. Why not store them at home, if guns are so safe and he had them securely locked up? Or why not actually store them in his consulting office?

It sounds like this guy was trying to get around a lot of laws and taxes.




And then there's this:


Every gun was registered, he says, and properly stored. He had all the proper licences and police inspected the apartment, armed with a motion-detector alarm, annually.

and

Hargreaves' stolen cache raises serious issues around the screening of gun collectors, and the licensing and storage of guns in Canada. The federal government gave him a storage license to keep weapons in a housing complex in an area known for gang activity.

Sounds somewhat legit, right? I thought so, until I read these bits:

Though he once had many friends on the Toronto police force...

and

Hargreaves says housing officials were unaware that he was storing firearms near families with children.


Hmm, very interesting.

So, it raises questions first off about the police inspections. One, was it officially inspected by the police, or just his buddies on the force who checked it unoficially and looked the other way on the whole issue of him storing guns where he probaby shouldn't.

And, additionally, he mentions that housing authoritys weren't aware that he was storing the guns near families. Yet they gave him a license to store these weapons. Was his registration obtained through fraud. For example, did he use his home or consulting firm address to obtain the permits, and then display the permit at the apartment?



I am willing to bet that this guy cut a lot of corners, did a lot of shady dealing, and broke a lot of laws.


While its true that he shouldn't be held accountable for the actual crimes committed with his guns, I think there may be more to this story than he claims. And I think he is not nearly as innocent as he claims to be. It looks to me like the went through a lot of shady dealings to find a place to store his guns, and didn't really care about the risk he was exposing to the neighborhood...