Thursday’s headlines

14 comments

1. Miller will keep pushing the gun ban because he is ideologically predisposed to do so. Now if would only wrap his pea brain around the reality that virtually all of the metro murders he has decried were committed by people with illegal guns (and most often involving gang on gang or thug on thug violence) he might have an idea of where he should go with his little crusade rather than pretending a gun ban will have any effect at all on the situation.

2. The longer Adam Vaughan is in office, the less I like him. He’s interested in crusades (the island airport, Porter) not issues.

3. I think Miller needs to read the Green Party Platform a bit more as it is surprisingly conservative and has no mention at all on gun control.

4. Josh> I’d suggest the media reports some of the high profile issues more (like the airport) but Vaughan is engaged in all sorts of ward-level issues that don’t make it into the paper because they aren’t city wide intiatives (but should be).

5. “Miller ripped for backing TTC as ‘essential service’”

   Perhaps the Sun website originally published the headline as it appears above, but it currently reads “Miller ripped for not backing TTC as ‘essential service,'” which is a more accurate reflection of the story.

6. That is actually the headline the Sun printed in the print edition. It’s obviously wrong and the content of the story confirms it. But even if the headline didn’t have a typo in it, you’ve got to wonder why this is news more than a week after Miller said he was opposed to the essential service designation.

7. virtually all of the metro murders he has decried were committed by people with illegal guns

   And most of these handguns start out in the hands of lawful owners who then lose them to theft. If they didn’t have them, legally, in the first place, they wouldn’t be available to be stolen.

8. There is nothing ideological about opposing handguns. It has certainly been seized as a political issue, but its has nothing to do with left, centre, or right wing politics. Its common sense, and McKnightford hits the problem on the head.

   As for Adam Vaughan, only him and Gord Perks have done quite well as new councillors. Constituents, for the msot part, are very happy with them. The Olivia Chow-Helen Kennedy backers on most Resident Associations have received much more attention than they ever got under the NDPers. The airport might benefit a few but it hurts more residents than it helps. AV is doing exactly what his constituents want of him, and luckily for them, he believes in the same cause.

9. Shawn> Certainly you’re correct about that. I would say it’s probably more the “style” in which he addresses these bigger issues more than his opinions, with which I am often in agreement. To try to make us believe that he’s against the taxi-stand because it’s bad for “the kids” insults our intelligence. It’s OK to be opposed to Porter Airlines but it’s wrong to suggest that they (TPA/Porter) should have approached the council out of court to settle this matter. TPA may be an arms-length governmental organization but Porter is a corporate entity, and as such they settle disputes (minor and major) in court. This is done as a matter of procedure far more than a matter of “stickin’ it to the city”. Only municipal politicians, who live in a fairly petty world, would think that way about Porter’s actions.

   Finally, I have a hard time believing that the city is capable of fostering an open, engaging atmosphere when it comes to the Island Airport. When the Mayor has built an entire election campaign around opposition to the airport, why would TPA and Porter feel that the olive branch is theirs to extend?

10. I would have believed both.

11. No McKingford, if you check any in depth news stories on handguns from Canadian media outlets you will see that the majority of handguns come from the United States. Back to the drawing board with that line of reasoning.

12. “Miller out now”, I don’t beleive you. Can you post a link please, lest we think you are making this up?

13. I found this with a simple Google search. I’m pro-gun myself, but I’ve given up trying to convince people. There’s too much emotion on either side.
    http://www.thestar.com/article/167340
    At the start, they say that they ‘recovered’ 2,432 firearms (don’t know for sure what recovered means). Further down, they say that “The task force recorded just 40 stolen firearms recovered as of Dec. 18.” which is less than 2%.
    The article also says that “More than half of the total number of firearms seized by Toronto police last year were considered ‘non-criminal,’ coming into their possession through a variety of means, such as a family member turning in an antique rifle after its owner dies or through a gun amnesty.”
    Allowing for that, we can adjust the number of stolen guns versus non-stolen to 40 vs 1,216 or about 4%.
    Of course, statistics can be used for almost anything. I’m certain an anti-gun person will be able to produce opposing numbers.

14. Here’s a start, oh ye of little faith, one from a columnist on each side of the fence:

    “Toronto police say two-thirds of the guns they seize enter Canada illegally across the border.”

    “Registered guns were used in only 2.27 per cent of Canadian homicides between 1997 and 2005, according to Statistics Canada tables. Also, legal gun owners were charged in just 1.2 per cent of murders committed with a gun.”
    –Royson James, Torstar (anti-gun)

    http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/413869

    “In 2006, Saskatchewan Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz obtained unpublished StatsCan tables showing that between 1997 and 2005, only 2.3% of homicides were committed with registered guns.”–Lorne Gunter, National Post (pro-gun)

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/03/lorne-gunter-a-handgun-ban-won-t-work.aspx

    Now matter how you twist the numbers it is clear a gun ban won’t affect gun violence because that’s not where the gun violence is coming from.