Steve Nease, cartoonist for the Oakville Beaver, re Canada’s gun-grabbers.

[jody]

[east texas lib]

1. That's some fine shootin'!

Right on target.

[rdenney]

8. Oh those poor persecuted law-abiding gun owners. I almost feel sorry for them!

[east texas lib]

14. Your "almost" smpathy is misplaced...

It would be more appropriate to "almost feel sorry" for the unarmed victims of armed criminals.
You know, the people that are denied the opportunity to arm themselves for self defense because
some politicians have decided that there is no "need" for private ownership of firearms.

[iverglas]

20. if only John O'Keefe had had a gun ...

It would be more appropriate to "almost feel sorry" for the unarmed victims of armed criminals. You know, the people that are denied the opportunity to arm themselves for self defense because some politicians have decided that there is no "need" for private ownership of firearms.

Why, John O'Keefe would be alive today. Right?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080113/stripclub_murder_080113?s_name=&no_ads=

Toronto's murder victim was an innocent bystander

Updated Mon. Jan. 14 2008 9:26 AM ET

Two suspects have been charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder for a fatal shooting outside the Brass Rail Club at 701 Yonge Street early Saturday morning.

Police say two men got into a scuffle inside the club and were kicked out by staff.

... One of the men allegedly pulled out a handgun <THE HANDGUN HE HAD A PERMIT TO POSSESS> and fired, striking a 42-year-old man who was standing outside the club.

The man, who police say was not the intended target, was shot once in the head. John O'Keefe was pronounced dead at the scene.

It is believed a bouncer at the club was the intended target. O'Keefe was an innocent bystander who just happened to be outside the club at the wrong time.


The body of the victim can be seen on the ground as police investigate the shooting outside Brass Rail strip club on Saturday, Jan. 12, 2008.

Why, John O'Keefe could have ... could have ... you're going to have to help me out here, I think. He could have ...?

[east texas lib]

22. You don't know what might've happened had O'Keefe been armed any more than I or anyone else does...

But to parade the victims of such occurances in thread after thread simply because you see opinions
that you disagree with and further have an evidently compulsory desire to negate and discredit said
opinions is rather callous and vile in itself. You do enjoy it though, don't you?

[iverglas]

24. give it fucking up

John O'Keefe, a bystander when someone near him started firing a gun on a crowded street, would be dead if he'd had a six-shooter in each hand.

If you don't know what would have happened to John O'Keefe if he had been "armed", you're not safe out. The fact that you won't acknowledge what would have happened, and that you know it, makes your presence in the public discourse dangerous to the public welfare.


But to parade the victims of such occurances in thread after thread simply because you see opinions that you disagree with and further have an evidently compulsory desire to negate and discredit said opinions is rather callous and vile in itself.

Hey, you never know -- if you decide to say something that makes sense some day, I may agree with it!

This here thread is about shootings in Toronto, and the FACT is that a very large proportion of the victims of those shootings are bystanders, some of them children, and a very large proportion of the firearms used in the shootings were legally owned, either by someone who didn't bother to secure them against theft or, mroe rarely, by the people who used them. And the FACT is that those victims would be dead today regardless of how many firearms they had stuffed in their undergarments.


So I'm afraid that the person I see parading irrelevant nonsense in this here thread, just because you see facts that don't suit your agenda, would be you.

And I assume you're enjoying yourself no end.

[east texas lib]

26. This here thread is about a cartoon published in the Oakville Beaver...

And as usual you attempt to control the discourse, make the rules, and silence all differing opinion.
If you cannot stomach a differing viewpoint, well that's a personal problem. But it's a big world
out there and not everyone will ask "How high?" when you say "Jump!".

[iverglas]

28. you don't seem particularly silent

I mean, it may just be noise, but it doesn't seem to be silence.

Yuppers, it's about a cartoon in the Oakville Beaver. (Popular journal where you're at, is it?)

It's about a cartoon in the Oakville Beaver that is a big lie.

I got no personal problem, friend. But it's true that I do find it hard to stomach big lies.

Or nonsense. Which you seem to be rather full of.

[Tejas]

30. It's better than ignoring you, isn't it? (quit being so indecisive) n/t

[maxidivine]

34. If they were stolen, they weren't "legally owned"

[iverglas]

37. no end of paradoxes, eh?

If they were stored contrary to legal requirements, then they were owned by someone who was in violation of firearms legislation/regulations.

If they were carried off the premises where they were permitted to be stored, then they were owned by someone who was in violation of firearms legislation/regulations.

"Legally owned" ... hmm.

All those law-abidin' gun owners ... one bad decision away from being criminals, eh?

They're law-abidin' ... until they ain't.

Don't it just make yer head spin?

[iverglas]

21. now just imagine what Jane Creba could have done

if she'd had a gun. Silly girl. Instead of walking into crossfire as she was shopping on Toronto's main downtown street on the day after Christmas, she should have been defending herself.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051228.wcreba1228a/BNStory/National/

Slain teenager veered blithely into crossfire

She was shopping with her 18-year-old sister, Alison, on the east side of the street, near Sam the Record Man, when she decided to skip across to the other side where the Foot Locker sporting goods store is located.

She walked smack into the crossfire of the gun battle, The Globe and Mail has learned, and took one bullet to the upper torso.

Ms. Creba, mortally wounded, dropped to the ground, and was so badly hurt she was the first to be taken away to hospital by ambulance.

... Police believe as many as 10 to 15 youths were involved and that more than one gun was fired.

In total, seven people were shot, including a man who was in critical condition, a student from Hong Kong who was treated in hospital and released and an off-duty police officer who sustained minor injuries.

Hell, if somebody, anybody, else had had a gun, why s/he too could have got a few rounds off into the crowd and stopped those bad guys dead. Or killed another couple of bystanders. Whatever.


This was originally published in a Toronto Star article no longer available on line, but quoted at this genealogy/obituary website:

www.ogs.on.ca/ogspi/190/e190m000.htm

2005-02-10 published
Stolen gun tied to December 26 shooting
Weapon taken from collector
Gun entered Canada legally

A 9mm handgun stolen from a southern Ontario gun collector was involved in the Boxing Day shooting that left 15-year-old Jane CREBA dead and six others injured, the Toronto Star has learned.

... The semi-automatic Ruger <P85 Mark II>, bearing the serial number 30324243, had its innocuous beginning at the Sturm Ruger plant in Prescott, Arizona., in September 1991. After being stamped out and assembled at the factory, it was sent directly to a licensed gun dealer in Ontario in the fall of that year.

... The revelation that the gun seized in the CREBA investigation also came from a break-in at a collector's home gives credence to the police claim that half the guns used in the commission of crimes in Canada have been stolen. The other half, police say, are smuggled in from the U.S.

And a litany of law-abidin' gun owners not taking proper care of their stuff:

Just this week, two men were arrested at gunpoint in downtown Toronto and charged with possession of two handguns stolen from a gun collector in Oshawa last week. Ken FOSTER, 67, lost his entire collection of handguns when thieves broke into his home while he was in hospital recovering from his fourth stroke and made off with his prized firearms, which included 10 Lugers.

... On December 8, gun collector Lionel WEESE returned to his Consecon, Ontario, home to find 23 handguns, including five.45-calibre pistols, missing. The thieves did not touch any of the roughly 30 long guns WEESE had in his home.

Late last year, thieves broke into the Parliament St. offices of lawyer Arthur BROWN and made off with the 17 handguns he was storing in a gun safe. Only one of those guns has been recovered.

Gun collector and firearms trainer Mike HARGREAVES also lost some 35 handguns and assault rifles when thieves broke into his Gilder Ave. apartment in December 2003, and spent two days cracking a 1,700-pound safe to steal the weapons. <For those who forget, Hargreaves had lied in order to rent a subsidized apt so he could store his many fancy guns while he was living in a home he owned in Florida.>

[iverglas]

2. oh, jody, if only you'd get a clue before you spew

right-wing lies like this
around DU.

Miller has consistently demanded more provincial and federal funding for police and prosecution services to deal with gangs and guns. Just for starters.

Back before we got our present extreme right-wing Conservative federal govt, when it was just the moderate right-wing Liberal Paul Martin in power (a left-wing Democrat, in US terms):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051109/martin_gunsgangs_051109/20051109?hub=Canada

"The vast majority of handgun crimes are connected to the activity of gangs. We're talking about our youth, and we're talking about our families, we're talking about our communities, and that is why we have to work together," Martin said.

"That's why I'm glad to join Mayor Miller and the mayor's advisory panel on community safety -- a municipal leader like Mayor Miller who understands these problems not in a simplistic way but all of its dimensions, this is the kind of leadership that we need to partner with as we seek long-term, lasting solutions," he said.

Miller welcomed the announcements, saying they give young people hope.

"The announcements you have made today, Mr. Prime Minister, reach exactly the right people by giving youth an opportunity to be diverted from crime and by investing substantially in crime prevention strategies," said Miller.

Yes, that's right, communities in Toronto are working, including with police, to keep youth out of gangs and away from guns. Under the leadership of Mayor David Miller and Toronto city council (which supports him).


From the article posted here the other day:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/431333

The gun debate erupted on a day when <Ontario Liberal> provincial Attorney General Chris Bentley and Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci were writing to their federal counterparts, seeking co-operation on curbing firearm violence.

"As you know, the people of Ontario continue to have serious concerns about the threat posed by guns and gun-related crime in our communities, particularly on the streets of downtown Toronto," Bentley and Bartolucci wrote in a five-page letter to federal Attorney General Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

They asked for a three-point plan to limit gun violence by:

* Making sure federal firearms marking regulations are stringently followed so guns can be traced.
* Appointing federal prosecutors to Ontario's guns and gangs task force.
* Closing legal loopholes that let gun parts be brought into Canada.

Mayor Miller, of course, supports all those measures.

So isn't it funny that that funny cartoon you have posted shows no bullets being fired by Miller at gangs, thugs or smuggling? (Smuggling?? Surely not from the USofA ...) When the truth is that he has been targeting all those things for a long time, and is now simply frustrated at the failure of the federal government to take action to STOP GUNS GETTING INTO THE HANDS of the gangs and thugs.

So one might almost say, given the efforts that Miller has made on all those fronts for quite a long time now, that the cartoon is a Big Lie.


I gotta say how impressed I am with this offering from The Oakville Beaver. What a grasp of Canadian society and media you exhibit, jody! The Oakville Beaver; I'm not even sure I could find Oakville on a map, although I've probably driven past it a few hundred times ...

http://www.oakvillebeaver.com/

A hotbed of news and views from the leading lights of the Canadian media world; why, just look at the front page story today ... I mean, this week:

Oakville's cemeteries in grave danger David Lea
May 31, 2008

They've had schools and streets named after them for what they did more than a century ago to put the Town of Oakville together and now the markers, which commemorate these great people, are under attack by the ...

I'm sure the cartoon played well in Oakville. It's in what we Ontarians call 905 land. The belt of complacency surrounding Toronto, from which they drive into the city in the morning and to which they return at night, and where they vote Conservative.

Mayor Miller, of course, was a longtime member of the (social democratic) New Democratic Party and was elected as such, having recently decided to allow his membership to lapse so that it is not a stumbling block in his dealings with the viciously, blindly partisan Harper government.


Yup, all in all, who would be surprised to see someone at Democratic Underground reading the Oakville Banner, and rejoicing in the false portrayal of a left-wing politician??

[krispos42]

10. Your second link goes to the article about Toronto's mayor banning shooting ranges

Mayor David Miller wants to close recreational shooting ranges in Toronto, along with giving the city power to block gun manufacturers and wholesalers from opening new plants or warehouses.

"Nobody can deny that hobby directly results in people being shot and killed on the streets of our city," Miller said of sport shooting yesterday, amid debate on a possible gun bylaw.

Canadian Olympic pistol shooter and downtown resident Avianna Chao begs to differ. She says that if Miller gets his way, it could mean an end to her sport – and it won't make the streets one bit safer.

Miller wants to terminate leases with two gun clubs that have shooting ranges on city property, one at Union Station, the other at Don Montgomery community centre.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/431333

Which in part proves the cartoon. Increasing the burden on people that own guns, hoping that year after year fewer people will bother to own them and that the reduced ownership rates will in turn reduce gang violence and smuggling.

The proposals and plans mentioned in the first link might help without burdening gun owners, disproving part of the cartoon.

I do wonder, though, if Canada's (as well as some Eurpean countries) crime and homicide rates are bumping up against some inherent limit that seems to be about the minimum achievable.

[iverglas]

15. how do you prove something "in part"

when it is a lie?

It is a lie to say that Miller has done nothing about gangs and thugs.

The cartoon says Miller has done nothing about gangs and thugs. This is a lie. Do please note that there is absolutely nothing the mayor of Toronto can do about smugglers, the other target the cartoon shows as untouched by Miller.

So no, the link does not prove the cartoon. Not in part and not any other way.

[krispos42]

23. So the master of ambiguity now wants black-and-white?

Fine. The cartoon is a lie because it is not 100% true.

Because GOD FORBID that his particular cartoon, with literally four targets, might be said to be ¼, ½, or ¾ correct. Or totally incorrect or totally correct, come to that.

[iverglas]

25. no, the cartoon is a lie because it is 100% false

The cartoon is not a bit of this and a bit of that. It is a single statement.

That statement is that Mayor David Miller has done nothing about gangs, has done nothing about thugs, has done nothing about smuggling (which is not even remotely within his jurisdiction), and has INSTEAD targetted them law-abidin' gun owners.

That statement is false. One hundred per cent.

[krispos42]

27. Hmph. 3 commas.

Noun
Singular comma, Plural commas


comma (plural commas)

Punctuation mark indicating a pause between parts of a sentence or between elements in a list.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comma

Hmph. Elements in a list. Imagine that.

[iverglas]

29. here ya go

Phfth. Too silly to answer.

[krispos42]

32. Yeah, we're arguing about who's "wronger" than the other!

:rofl:

Feels like GD-P

[beevul]

36. It would be more accurate...

It would be more accurate if the target with all the holes in it had been in front of the other three targets, meaning that miller has no trouble going after those gangs thugs and smugglers, even if he has to go through the law abiding to get them, which clearly he has no problem doing.


And that was the intended message that the cartoon implies...well, the sophistry impaired notwithstanding.

[iverglas]

38. nah

It would be more accurate if the target with all the holes in it had been in front of the other three targets, meaning that miller has no trouble going after those gangs thugs and smugglers, even if he has to go through the law abiding to get them

Still just a BIG LIE, even with the spin. Because the spin is just false.

Atill fun to read the opinions of the blithely uninformed ... or wilfully ignorant ... of course.

[beevul]

39. What big lie?

"Still just a BIG LIE, even with the spin. Because the spin is just false."

Saying something would more accurately represent something if it had been done in a different way is not spin, nor is it a lie.

Do you deny that miller is willing to go through the law abiding to get people other than the law abiding?

Did anyone claim that miller had not done things to go after thugs and criminals and the like that did not effect the law abiding, and did the cartoon in question imply such a thing, and did my characterization of what would be a more accurate cartoon do any of the above at all??


Dump the sophistry and answer the questions.

[iverglas]

40. and I didn't say

Saying something would more accurately represent something if it had been done in a different way is not spin, nor is it a lie.

that what you said was spin or a lie.

I said that the, er, re-interpretation of the cartoon offered by you, i.e. the suggested restatement of the cartoonist's own intent, not yours, would still be a big lie.

Quite apart from the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with the cartoon under discussion, or what that cartoon actually said.


Do you deny that miller is willing to go through the law abiding to get people other than the law abiding?

Does that mean something? Maybe YOU could just make a straightforward statement. Never mind this "go through" crud. No similes or metaphors or figures of speech, if you don't mind. What is it that Miller is willing to DO TO these law-abiding, as symbolically depicted in the cartoon, per you or your re-interpretation of the cartoon? While you're at it, do something about that "get" too, would you?


Did anyone claim that miller had not done things to go after thugs and criminals and the like that did not effect the law abiding, and did the cartoon in question imply such a thing, and did my characterization of what would be a more accurate cartoon do any of the above at all??

The cartoon in question didn't imply that at all.

It SAID it. In black and white and colour.

And your attempted re-interpretation of the cartoon isn't an interpretation, it is a whole nother cartoon. Nonetheless, it says exactly the same thing: that the ONLY action being proposed by Miller in order to "get" the bad, bad people is to ... do something ... to good, decent folks.

Making the cartoon tell the truth would really be very easy.

Same targets.

Lots of bullet holes in the "gangs" and "thugs" targets. I might add "exclusion" as an extra target, with a bunch of holes in it too. Root causes, you know, and the things Toronto is trying to do about them.

Bullet holes all around the "smuggling" target -- since constitutionally, Miller cannot aim at the target itself.

And a big bleeding heart on the fourth target, the blood being that of the victims of violence committed with firearms used by or stolen from "legal owners", and Miller taking careful aim at it while it says "blood? what blood?".

[beevul]

41. Now I see where your problem is with this.

"Nonetheless, it says exactly the same thing: that the ONLY action being proposed by Miller in order to "get" the bad, bad people is to ... do something ... to good, decent folks."


It describes no other actions outside the issue in question. It does not say that miller has done nothing else. It does not say that miller has proposed nothing else.

It says that THIS action proposed by miller is perfectly portrayed by the cartoon, and if in an effort to stay on this specific issue, you were to see it in that context, you might have to admit that its right on the money.


Here, maybe you can better understand a correction in your own wording, than you can mine from scratch:

Nonetheless, it says that the ONLY action being proposed by Miller where this specific proposal is concerned, in order to "get" the bad, bad people is to ... do something ... to good, decent folks.

There ya go. Now its spot on.

On edit: That you have to portray the cartoon as addressing something it was never meant to address in order to to attack it, should tell you something.

[iverglas]

42. is the blindness wilful?

It describes no other actions outside the issue in question. It does not say that miller has done nothing else. It does not say that miller has proposed nothing else.

I do trust you have actually seen the cartoon. But what the heck, let's take another look:



Gangs: no hits, obviously no attempts to hit.
LIE. Considerable efforts undertaken by Toronto council and police, and cooperatively with provincial authorities (e.g. courts and prosecution services) and with the communities, and efforts to obtain assistance/cooperation from federal government.

Thugs: no hits, obviously no attempts to hit.
LIE. What, Toronto police don't arrest thugs?

Smugglers: no hits, obviously no attempts to hit.
DISHONEST DISCOURSE. Miller can do nothing about smuggling. It falls outside his jurisdiction, under the constitution, as mere mayor of a municipal corporation, a creature of a province.
LIE, actually, however, to the extent that the police service of Miller's municipality is very actively involved in efforts like gun traces that provide the information and intelligence needed to combat gun smuggling. So yeah, actually, we'll go with LIE.

Legal gun owners: the recipients of every single bullet fired by Miller.
LIE. Contrary to the facts as set out above.

There are more nuances, of course.

When it comes to gangs and thugs, Miller and Toronto council fund and cooperate in prevention, detection, investigation, enforcement and prosecution.

When it comes to legal gun owners ... hmm. Is Miller proposing that they be prosecuted for legally owning guns? Would that, like, make any sense at all?

The proposal that the cartoon is about is a very simple one: "terminate leases with two gun clubs that have shooting ranges on city property". You have grasped that, right? Oh, right, and "giving the city power to block gun manufacturers and wholesalers from opening new plants or warehouses." The effect of which on "legal gun owners" would be precisely zero.

Having failed to receive any assistance/cooperation from the federal government to deal with the problems of crimes committed with firearms owned by "legal gun owners", Miller can do only what it is within the jurisdiction of Toronto council to do. Council has jurisdiction over its own property and over zoning. It cannot prohibit possession of restricted firearms in Toronto. But it can make legal possession of restricted firearms in Toronto less attractive, and thus reasonably expect that fewer people will choose to possess restricted firearms in Toronto, by eliminating the places where they may be used in Toronto.

It would make a great big fat lot more sense for the government that has the requisite jurisdiction to make the rules that would have a more definite and more salutory impact: to prohibit the possession of restricted weapons by sports shooters and collectors. As I've said, I myself see no reason or need to prohibit ownership, merely possession off the premises where they are used, in the case of sports shooters.

But Miller can't do that.

Nonetheless, he IS actively engaged in combatting gangs and gun crime, and in prosecuting people who engage in criminal gang activity and gun crime. And he is NOT proposing that "legal gun owners" be prosecuted or punished in any way.



Nonetheless, it says that the ONLY action being proposed by Miller where this specific proposal is concerned, in order to "get" the bad, bad people is to ... do something ... to good, decent folks.

The italicized bit apparently being your contribution, by which you have created a nonsense.

I have no idea how a proposal to "terminate leases with two gun clubs that have shooting ranges on city property" -- which IS the specific proposal concerned -- could conceivably have any effect on gangs, thugs or smugglers.

So fucking duh, eh? Where this proposal is concerned, the only effect is on "legal gun owners" (including, of course, those who store their firearms illegally, those who transport their firearms illegally, those who commit crimes including homicide with their firearms ...).

So congratulations. You have created a tautology.

A tautology that you know as well as all the rest of us know has nothing to do with the message conveyed, and intended to be conveyed, by the cartoon. If that were the message intended to be conveyed by the cartoon, the cartoonist would just be a moron.


On edit: That you have to portray the cartoon as addressing something it was never meant to address in order to to attack it, should tell you something.

Hey, I don't need no stinkin' amendments. Straight off: that you have pretended so long and hard not to have grasped from the outset exactly what the message conveyed by the cartoon is tells me a great deal.

[beevul]

43. Is the misrepresentation deliberate?

This cartoon was a RESPONSE.

A response is a REACTION of sorts.

Was the poster in question a RESPONSE to the things that miller had done BEFORE his attacks on lawful gun ownership? the answer is NO. Its a response TO his attacks on lawfuul gun ownership/and/or use.

Therefore it does not pertain to those things done before, up to and including the things you have said to the contrary.

"Legal gun owners: the recipients of every single bullet fired by Miller.LIE. Contrary to the facts as set out above."

No. You're misrepresenting it yet again. Legal gun owners: the recipients of every single bullet fired by Miller "this time at the range" . It does not imply that miller "did not aim at other targets" on "preceding trips to the range". Fucking duh.





The cartoon in question is aimed SQUARELY at miller and his intent to ban handguns and go after legal ownership/use of same, or had you forgotten the petition you claimed with so much glee that youd be rushing off to sign:

"Yay Miller."

"Gotta go sign up."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166114#166120

Like I said, that you have to portray the cartoon as addressing something it was never meant to address in order to to attack it, and you ignore and misrepresent the things that the cartoon really WAS meant to address, well, it speaks for itself. And knowing your position on all this before this cartoon came about, pretty well explains why. "yay miller", "gotta go sign up".

"And he is NOT proposing that "legal gun owners" be prosecuted or punished in any way."


Bwahahahahaha. You will of course claim that this isn't any sort of proposed punishment, or prosecution or even persecution, I suppose.


"Toronto Mayor David Miller has launched an online petition calling for a countrywide ban on handguns.

Miller, who has long advocated for a total ban on handguns, said incidents of gun violence, particularly in Toronto, can't be fully addressed without a total ban.

Toronto's executive council spent Monday listening to emotional pleas from relatives and friends of people killed on city streets by handguns.

Miller is calling on all Canadians to sign the petition, which he plans to personally deliver to Parliament Hill in June.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/04/08/tto-handguns.html


At any rate, that was check, and mate.

I trust you don't need to have explained to you the meaning of those words.

[iverglas]

45. very definitely

The cartoonist is beyond question guilty of the most gross and dishonest misrepresentation. There ya go.


Was the poster in question a RESPONSE to the things that miller had done BEFORE his attacks on lawful gun ownership? the answer is NO. Its a response TO his attacks on lawfuul gun ownership/and/or use.

At some point, you're going to have to explain why there were targets in the picture labelled

GANGS
THUGS
SMUGGLERS

then, aren't you? If it was a RESPONSE to this one particular THING, then what were those OTHER THINGS doing in the picture?

Heck, if the cartoonist really had it in for Miller, he could have made those other things

TORONTO WATERFRONT
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION
GARDNER EXPRESSWAY.

THEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE. Because THOSE are THINGS that it can HONESTLY be said that Miller has NOT been doing what he should be doing about.


The cartoon in question is aimed SQUARELY at miller and his intent to ban handguns and go after legal ownership/use of same

How can you keep spewing such NONSENSE?

Miller has NO jurisdiction over handguns and thus NO authority to "ban" them, and thus can have NO intent to "ban them". I won't be bothering to respond to weasel words like "go after the ownership/use of same". Who the hell says "of same" if English is their first language? But of course that's not the thing to which I refer. "Go after". Miller must be one of those banned pit bulls, I guess.


You will of course claim that this isn't any sort of proposed punishment, or prosecution or even persecution, I suppose.

Uh, Yeah. I will claim that terminating the leases of gun clubs operating on City of Toronto property is not any sort of punishment or prosecution or persecution of anybody.

Call me insane.


"Toronto Mayor David Miller has launched an online petition calling for a countrywide ban on handguns. ..."

Yeah, the one I've already described as ill-conceived and poorly written.

What, you want to gag him? Isn't there something about PETITIONING for REDRESS in that constitution of yours? You don't think Canadians got free speech?

Or are you still pretending to think that Miller has some AUTHORITY over handguns, and thus INTENT to do something that affects ownership and possession thereof?


"Miller is calling on all Canadians to sign the petition, which he plans to personally deliver to Parliament Hill in June."

Reminds me. I gotta go sign up. Even an ill-conceived and poorly-written demand is better than none.

[beevul]

48. I refuse to believe you're so dense as not to understand it.

"At some point, you're going to have to explain why there were targets in the picture labelled

GANGS
THUGS
SMUGGLERS

then, aren't you? If it was a RESPONSE to this one particular THING, then what were those OTHER THINGS doing in the picture?"


Thugs, smugglers, gangs, those are not the people hes aiming at when hes pimping his petition to ban all handguns nationwide, and proposing to shut down shooting clubs. The man has a personal problem with guns - the ones I'm sure he is protected by notwithstanding - and his effort to shut down certain venues, and his petition effort are not directed at criminals thugs smugglers or gangsters - theyre aimed at for the most part, law abiding people.

Your efforts to assert to the contrary while laughable, aren't making believers out of anyone.


You'll have better luck at this point going and signing that precious petition, than you will trying to get anyone to believe tht the cartoon in question pertains to things that it was never intended to pertain to.

"I won't be bothering to respond to weasel words like "go after the ownership/use of same". Who the hell says "of same" if English is their first language? But of course that's not the thing to which I refer. "Go after". Miller must be one of those banned pit bulls, I guess."


Weasel words? Hahahahahaha.


Hey everyone, I just got talked down to for using "weasel words"...by IVERGLAS.

[iverglas]

49. my my

his petition effort are not directed at criminals thugs smugglers or gangsters - theyre aimed at for the most part, law abiding people. Your efforts to assert to the contrary while laughable, aren't making believers out of anyone.

His petition effort is directed at KEEPING FIREARMS OUT OF THE HANDS OF criminals, thugs and gangsters. As you are well aware.

Because, frankly, you just can't come up with any other remotely rational explanation.

And your desperate efforts to portray the man elected as mayor of the largest city in Canada, whose progressive credentials would send yours into outer space if they were placed on opposite ends of a balance, as whatever it is you're trying to portray him as, are snicker-making.

It really is quite entertaining that the only explanation you folks can come up with for firearms control advocacy is, like, mass psychosis. Or psychopathy. Mentally ill and/or congenitally evil people, who somehow have managed to get themselves elected to some responsible offices and give no other indication of psychosis or psychopathy, they're just out to get YOU. Hmm. One wonders where the psychosis/psychopathy really lies.


Thugs, smugglers, gangs, those are not the people hes aiming at when hes pimping his petition to ban all handguns nationwide, and proposing to shut down shooting clubs.

You are a great big giant KNOW-NOTHING in this regard, and all you're doing is proving it.

The man has a personal problem with guns

Proving that you're a know-nothing and eager to speak from your ignorance. Repeatedly. Thus establishing your utter bad faith.


the ones I'm sure he is protected by notwithstanding

Alrighty then. How sure is that?

Aha. This must be his security goons now.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/444946.bin?size=404x272
Damn, you'll have to click and look at that yourself.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=443521

Oh, oops, seems not: "Toronto Mayor David Miller chats with police". (Forgive the National Post reference. Had a hard time finding a picture of Miller with anything resembling police anywhere near him. I'm sure you'll enjoy the piece though. It's right-wing spew.)

I guess that's him up on that platform:



"Mayor David Miller addresses the crowd of cyclists, urging them to make every week 'Bike Week'."

Oh, looks like those cops he was chatting with were from this crew:



"Members of the Ontario Provincial Police patrol the city by mountain bike."
(No, those will be Toronto police, not OPP, I think.)

http://www.imba.com/tcc/2004/toronto.html



http://biketoronto.ca/topic/show/Bike%20Week

Aha, those must be undercover bike cops all around him ...

Ha. I wonder which of the Totally Naked Toronto Men gathered around Miller here is the undercover ... er ... uncovered cop ...



http://www.tntmen.org/

Yeah. Let's see the mayor of somewheresville usa doin' that.

Btw, fyi:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n851.a06.html

... City Councillor David Miller, 44, said he never smoked in Canada. It was only during his university days at Harvard in Boston.

... The candidates were reacting to news that Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino has told his officers to stop laying charges for simple possession of marijuana.

Fantino said he made the decision because of government inaction and several court decisions that leave police wondering whether simple possession is an offence at all.

http://www.humanhemphealth.ca/TO_Sun_090403.html

Councillor David Miller, 45, also supports decriminalization, saying police need to focus on dealing with "real criminals."

But enough mocking you. Is there some reason why a public figure should not receive public protection when the position s/he occupies creates an elevated risk to his/her security? I kinda like the idea that somebody might find it hard to assassinate my elected representatives, personally. Bad thing for a society, assassinations.



You folks probably need to write Mr. Nease a big slobbering fan letter ... and ask HIM what he meant.

Ask him right out: if he didn't mean to say that Miller was doing nothing about gangs, thugs or smugglers, why did he produce a cartoon that depicted Miller doing nothing about gangs, thugs and smugglers?

Should be an easy question.

[beevul]

52. You just crossed the line.

"And your desperate efforts to portray the man elected as mayor of the largest city in Canada, whose progressive credentials would send yours into outer space if they were placed on opposite ends of a balance, as whatever it is you're trying to portray him as, are snicker-making."


You just wrote a check that your big mouth can't cash. In the nicest possible way, go take a flying fuck in a rolling donut. You don't know me. You don't know my credentials. You can't even understand a simple cartoon, so what business do you have questioning the credentials of someone you know absolutely NOTHING about eh? It is You who are a great big giant KNOW-NOTHING in this regard, but somewhere along the line you engaged the cruise control on your mouth, and can't seem to find the off switch.

You complain endlessly about people claiming you said things you didn't say, about people misrepresenting things that you and others say, about people being dishonest and disingenuous, about people spinning things, about people that don't want to engage in good faith discussions, about people using "filthy innuendo" - And you know what? Every single time I see you say it, I need look no further than the thread you said it in, to find an example of you doing just the things you spend the majority of your time complaining about. But that isn't where it ends. You REVEL in doing it , and then saying someone else did it - or the reverse. You don't want to understand the facts that destroy your arguments. You don't want to understand what things like the cartoon in question say. You don't want to understand what other people are saying. You would much rather claim they say or mean things they don't and argue against the strawman you so often accuse everyone else of making. And on the other side of the coin, you don't want to be understood. Nobody that does writes even half the verbiage you do, in casual informal discussions. "...or Baffle them with bullshit", as the saying goes...

And you do it all with an arrogant flair that would make rumsfeld jealous.

You are the last person that should be saying any of those things until you become aware of your own self doing and saying them, and until you learn how to read and interpret a simple cartoon instead of torturing it into meaning something it doesn't.

[iverglas]

53. my, my

If it isn't somebody putting himself on the same plane as Eleanor Roosevelt, it's somebody cloaking himself in self-righteous indignation at the suggestion that someone who has actually been elected as a social democrat mayor of one of the major cities in the world has progressive credentials that outweigh his own.

My my.


You can't even understand a simple cartoon, so what business do you have questioning the credentials of someone you know absolutely NOTHING about eh?

You won't even acknowledge the dishonest right-wing meaning of a very, very simple dishonest right-wing cartoon, so why would I believe you have any progressive credentials at all?

[beevul]

55. I no longer care what you believe.

"You won't even acknowledge the dishonest right-wing meaning of a very, very simple dishonest right-wing cartoon, so why would I believe you have any progressive credentials at all?"

You take a great talk, and spew the term "right wing" alot, but I have never once seen you define what makes a thing, a statement, a cartoon, or a position right wing. So far, the only criteria I can see is that it be something that you disagree with.

And really, I could give a fuck less at this point. Why should I care what some anonymous Canadian posting on a website dedicated to American politics thinks. All you have shown me or anyone else in these past 4 years and change, is how to be an arrogant self important venom spewing poster of mountains of verbiage, with a penchant for vile innuendo and filthy implication and a gift for skirting the rules - and how to get away with it.


Now run along and sign that little petition, Ahab.

[iverglas]

56. Ahab

Dang, the insult was lost on me. That harkens back to one of my first acts of adolescent rebellion. I read the first paragraph of that dreary testosterone-laden tome and said No. No, not reading it. And I never did.


All you have shown me or anyone else in these past 4 years and change, is how to be an arrogant self important venom spewing poster of mountains of verbiage, with a penchant for vile innuendo and filthy implication and a gift for skirting the rules - and how to get away with it.

Well you're obviously a good student, if a tad slow.

[beevul]

57. "And he piled upon the whale's white hump..."

"And he piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it."

Your loss, if you chose not to read it. And yeah, that sounds like miller to me.

From a clearly pro-ban source:

Guns are not the primary weapon used to inflict criminal violence against Canadians. In 2006, just 2.4 per cent of the victims suffered at the end of a gun.

Yes, a handgun was used in two-thirds of the cases of gun violence, but those guns were illegally obtained and unregistered in 102 of 108 gun murders in 2006. A ban won't stop these.

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.

(I assume, being a pro-ban source, that they would have given the above statistics proper scrutiny and not printed them if they were incorrect)


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

That miller...Hes just interested in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, thugs and gangsters though, nothing more. :eyes: :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

58. them danged mealies

Just can't get 'em out of your mouth, can you?


That miller...Hes just interested in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, thugs and gangsters though, nothing more. :eyes: :sarcasm:

So you don't believe that. I think we've got that already.

What exactly is it that you do believe?

Do try to phrase it somehow that doesn't manage to depict the social democrat mayor of one of the leading (oh, and safest) cities on earth as either

(a) a drooling idiot with an IQ of twelve;

(b) an unstable lunatic beset by paranoid delusions / an emotional basketcase unable to deal with the world rationally; or

(c) a jack-booted thug out to subjugate the good burghers of Hogtown

could you? I mean, I know you don't want to do any of those things.

I guess I can take your response as read though. You consider Miller to be the real-life embodiment of a bizarre fictional character. And I guess that makes George W Bush, what, Shane? You do know that real life and fiction are not the same, right? So really, I guess I'm still needing an answer.


Interesting how you avoided Royson James's other considerations and conclusions. By the way, he's black, and he sends the National Post into frothing fury. Here's what'll really make your head spin, though: he and David Miller ... well, let's just say no love lost:

http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=7488


Anyhow, it's interesting to note just what some explanations for those facts and figures are.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

Over the past 20 years, shootings and stabbings have each accounted for about one-third of all homicides. Prior to 1985, shootings were much more common than stabbings.

Among Canada's largest cities, Toronto experienced the most shooting deaths, with 34 in 2006. However, taking population into account, Toronto's firearm homicide rate was less than half that of Edmonton, the city with the highest rate.

The longer-term trend has been a decline since the mid-1970s in the rate of firearms used to commit homicide. However, trends differ depending on the type of firearm.

Prior to 1990, rifles/shotguns were used far more frequently than handguns. However, since the late 1970s, the use of rifles/shotguns began to decrease, while the use of handguns remained relatively stable. By 1991, the number of handgun homicides surpassed that of rifles/shotguns, and the gap has continued to grow since.

In 2006, handguns accounted for 108, or over half, of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. A further 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle/shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.

I'm having some difficulty finding the source of James's assertion that the firearms were "illegally obtained and unregistered in 102 out of 108 gun murders in 2006", factoid though it seems to have become. Maybe you can tell me. Royson James isn't exactly an authoritative primary source, y'know.

Where do firearms stolen from people in legal possession of them come into that equation?

What Statcan does say:

Majority of recovered firearms were not registered

Of the 48 recovered firearms in 2006 where the registration status was known, police reported that the majority, 30, were not registered with the Canadian Firearms Centre, while 18 were registered.

Of the 45 recovered firearms where ownership could be determined, police reported that 26 were owned by the accused and 2 by the victim. The remaining 17 firearms were owned by someone other than the accused or victim, of which 10 were reported to have been stolen.

Hmm. If only 48 of the firearms were recovered, how the hell could anyone know that 102 were unregistered? Might it be reasonable to think that a firearm reported stolen was a registered firearm?

I'm not seeing those figures in these search results for site:www.statcan.ca handguns registered 102 108:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=+site%3Awww.statcan.ca+handguns+registered+102+108&btnG=Search&meta=


(I assume, being a pro-ban source, that they would have given the above statistics proper scrutiny and not printed them if they were incorrect)

Well, the "source" being Royson James, and the Star evidently failing to exercise oversight of him, you might be assuming badly.

[beevul]

59. "What exactly is it that you do believe?"

I believe in bigfoot.

I believe in the loch ness monster.

I believe in extra terrestrial life.

I want to believe...

Where was I?

Oh yeah...

"What exactly is it that you do believe?"


I believe he is just another politician with an axe to grind, who just happens to be on your side of the of the border.

Reading some history about him, seems to show that hes been an opponent of private ownership of firearms for quite some time. That he appears to be a long time opponent of private firearms ownership would appear at first glance to be quite a coincidence, with him campaining to ban privately owned handguns and all, but I don't believe in coincidences of that sort.

[jody]

51. You could be wrong re "so dense as not to understand it". n/t

[iverglas]

54. and jody could be, once again,

deliberately flouting the plain instruction to members of DU that if they choose to ignore someone, they IGNORE the person in question, and not continue on their merry way wagging their nasty tongues about whenever and however they choose.

If you have something to say to me, jody, BE A MAN. Come out from behind your pop-guns and put your money where your big fat mouth is and say it to me.

[Tejas]

61. "Even an ill-conceived and poorly-written demand is better than none."

Desperation at its finest :crazy:

[enfield collector]

3. yeah that's about par for the course here and in the UK as well

pass a bunch of feel-good laws that frustrate law abiding gun owners that the crims ignore.

[iverglas]

4. yeah, that's about par for the course for you and the rest of them here

say something idiotic that ignores the facts.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Yep, much EASIER to go after those that obey laws..

Instead of those that ignore them.....

Just like the Coward he is.

[iverglas]

6. you people are funny

in a, like, buffoon kinda way.

[rdenney]

7. Yeah, we just *know* the cops only arrest "law-abiding" gun owners dont we ?

thats why there are no criminals, thugs and gang members in prison. :sarcasm:

[Tejas]

13. no, but that is what gungrabbers want,

no sense in concentrating on thugs and gangs, antis might get shot doing that.

[maxidivine]

35. there are, but they really don't care

about going back. They tend to care about money, respect, and cash, in no particular order. Maybe if they wouldn't be released years early to make room for non-violent offenders, they'd learn better. Or at least come out older, and hopefully less capable of harming their communities.

[Tejas]

12. laughing won't make your thugs and gangs go away n/t

[iverglas]

19. it undoubtedly won't cure cancer, either

I'm sure you had a point somewhere, though.

[ogsbee]

9. Tell me something, if I went over to the other side, the Gun Grabbers, is there some organization

that would pay me to post nonsense ad nauseum in strange sentence structures? I could use the money.

[jody]

11. "post nonsense ad nauseum in strange sentence structures"? I use DU's repellent to avoid such things

Have a great day. :hi:

[iverglas]

16. Do let me know

I don't need the money at all, but I'm always up for a game.

[east texas lib]

17. Don't know about the pay...

But just THINK about what your social status in anti gun community would become! Why, you'd be as
a GOD!

[Tejas]

47. that's simple

Just apply to the Joyce Foundation, a bit of mumbo jumbo and you're in the black.

[iverglas]

50. of course, you'd be a fool to do that

when the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has so multiply much more money to hand out to anybody who will take up the right-wing astroturf "gun rights" cause. Them just for starters.

[Tejas]

60. Anybody home?

ogsbee: "if I went over to the other side, the Gun Grabbers, is there some organization..........."

Let's review: As a gun-grabber, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education doesn't resemble an organization that ogbee would aproach for assistance.

[iverglas]

18. the other bit of the LIE

You'd almost think, looking at that cartoon, that no legal gun owner had anything to answer for.

From the repeatedly cited Star article:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/431333

"After John O'Keefe's tragic killing, I don't think there's any defence for sports shooters any more," Miller said, referring to the man shot in January by a stray bullet. The gun was legally owned by the man charged in the killing.

The man was A MEMBER OF A GUN CLUB, which was why he was permitted to possess a handgun; he was NOT permitted to have the handgun outside the premises where he was permitted to store it (his home) or gun club premises except in accordance with his permit to transport, and HE WAS CARRYING IT AT A STRIP CLUB ON THE MAIN STREET OF TORONTO, and HE SHOT AND KILLED A PASSERBY.

The man who killed one person and seriously injured others at the college in Montreal had a permit to possess restricted firearms, the rifle he used and the handgun he had with him.

The several firearms "collectors" whose restricted firearms (handguns and others) were stolen in and near Toronto in recent years AND USED TO COMMIT CRIMES AND KILL PEOPLE in Toronto were legal owners of the firearms that they failed to secure against theft.


If some of you wisejackasses can tell us how we know which of these "legal gun owners" Mr. Nease is touting aren't going to show up at a school and start killing people, or open fire on a crowded street, or leave their firearms where people likely to do such things are able to get them, well, then, I'm sure we'll be very grateful.

[Tejas]

31. speaking of jackasses

"If some of you wisejackasses can tell us how we know which of these "legal gun owners" Mr. Nease is touting aren't going to show up at a school and start killing people, or open fire on a crowded street, or leave their firearms where people likely to do such things are able to get them, well, then, I'm sure we'll be very grateful.'

Probably every one of them, the odds say so.

next!

[iverglas]

33. well, except for that one who killed John O'Keefe earlier this year

And the several who have allowed their unsecured collections of multiple restricted firearms to be stolen and used to kill, oh, Jane Creba ...

The odds are wonderfully low. And Creba and O'Keefe (and a few others) are dead. I wonder how much they would have wagered on not getting killed that day? Too bad we can't ask them ...

Some people just don't gamble with other people's lives quite so gleefully.

[Tejas]

44. Then don't gamble (or ask any more silly questions) n/t

[iverglas]

46. ooga booga blub blub

I'm hoping that's an appropriate response to the strange collection of words you have offered in "reply" to my post. I'm afraid I just have no way of knowing, having not the least clue what message that strange collection of words was intended to convey.