Guns, Gangs and Toronto

[a_majoor]

Moving back to the issue of guns.....

Blame America
“We must blame them and cause a fuss. Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus.”

By Doug Gamble

When gunfire erupted among shoppers in the heart of downtown Toronto the day after Christmas, leaving a teenaged girl dead and six other people wounded, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Toronto Mayor David Miller were quick to identify the culprit: The United States.

"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto," its mayor said from his vacation site in Spain. Missing from his statement was any recognition of the porous security at the Canadian border, the deteriorating Canadian social fabric, or the increased gang activity that has held his city hostage to escalating violence over the past few years.

Until now, as the bodies of shooting victims piled up, the mayor had remained mostly silent and had proposed few viable remedies for the violence that has turned Toronto into Murder City North. The 52 gun-related deaths in Canada's largest city in 2005, out of a total of 78, is double 2004's count.

"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," Miller charged. He added that his city is still very safe compared to most U.S. cities, yet statistics show violent crime has been dropping in most American cities while it is rising dramatically in such Canadian cities as Toronto and Winnipeg. In a revealing comment reported last year in the Toronto Sun, a retired Toronto police official said he actually feels safer walking the streets of New York City at night than Toronto streets during the day.

Toronto is now where many U.S. cities were back in the early 1970s, so helpless in the grip of thug violence that it spawned vigilante movies like Dirty Harry and Death Wish, with theater audiences clapping and cheering at scenes of the bad guys being gunned down in the streets. Toronto's increasing gun violence has been its dirty little secret, now being exposed for potential tourists to see.

Martin, in the midst of a reelection campaign in which America bashing is such a major tactic it drew a rebuke from the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa, also chimed in on the shootings. Claiming that half of the gun crimes in Canada involve weapons entering illegally from the U.S., he said, "What we saw is a stark reminder of the challenge that governments, police forces, and communities face to ensure that Canadian cities do not descend into the kind of rampant gun violence we have seen elsewhere."

The words "descend" and "elsewhere," of course, refer to the U.S. By refusing to address Canada's own role in the shootings, it appears that Martin is gearing up to have Canada join some of the world's Islamic countries who blame all their problems on either the U.S. or Israel.

In what is obviously pure politics, he has pledged to ban all handguns if reelected on Jan. 23. But Canada already has stiff restrictions against such guns, and a ban would only take them away from law-abiding citizens and leave them in the hands of gang members and other criminals.

The Toronto shootings actually play into Martin's hands, giving him more ammunition in to propagandize that a Canada under Conservative-party leader Stephen Harper would be more like the U.S.

What is terrifying about Toronto's gun violence is that it is not mostly restricted to certain neighborhoods with heavy gang activity and drug dealing, as in the U.S., but rather occurs all over the city and suburbs. Toronto itself has become one big, dangerous neighborhood, with shootings outside a church during a funeral, at a barbecue, on a bus, and elsewhere.

It is difficult to begin making progress toward solutions when the mere mention of the fact that virtually all of the shooters are young black men immediately brings cries of "racist" and "profiling" from black community leaders. In Canada, one of the world's most politically correct countries, even tough talk by police officials about getting criminals off the streets is viewed by some as racist.

It is easier to blame the U.S. and remain in denial than to recognize any need for Canada to take responsibility for its own problems. While America's national symbol is the eagle, Canada's should be the ostrich.

Meanwhile, hope that Canadian voters might do the virtually unimaginable and actually turf out the incompetent and corrupt Liberal party appears to be gaining life. A burgeoning government financial scandal has allowed the Conservatives to close the gap with the Liberals, although Canadian voters have toyed with change in the past only to bow to their dislike of risk on Election Day.

— An ex-Torontonian, California-based Doug Gamble is a former writer for Presidents Reagan and Bush 41. He is now a freelance writer for various politicians and corporate executives.
 
  http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gamble200601050706.asp

       

 

[The_Falcon]

Navcomm sure the conservatives can go back on their word if elected (o ye of little faith), however there are some major differences between there proposals to curb crime (specifically gun, crime which is why I posted this here) and the liberals.  Lets look at them shall we, Tories-increases mandatory minimums to 5-10 years for 26 firearms related offence (each offence will have its own min, for example possesion 5 years, possesion while commiting an offence 10 years.  These are my examples I don't have the policy package).  Liberal-increase mandatory mins from 1 year to 2 years across the board.  Tories would make bail hearings for gun crime have a reverse onus, liberals the same (although they stole this idea from the Tories).  Tories-no more mandatory release and no more conditional sentences for violent/repeat/sexual offenders.  Liberals-? Tories-Increase number of RCMP and provide additional funds to provinces/cities to hire more cops.  Liberals, I think may have mentioned something about additional RCMP but I am not sure.  Tories-Reconstitute Ports Police. Liberals-Disbanded them, no plans on bringing them back.  Tories-Have more frontline officers at border crossing points (RCMP/customs) and the would ARM customs officers.  Liberals-have suggested that they would put some RCMP on the border, but have flatly refused to arm Customs officers.

The differences are clear.  Time to have some faith, and believe that some people may actually keep thier promises.  If they don't then toss em out next time around.

 

[NavComm]

Hatchet I don't want to hijack this topic too much so I will stick to the gun issue also. IMO no matter what any politician says right now, it's all rhetoric. There is no crisis in Toronto. There is no need for so much hysteria about gangs and violence and murder in Toronto. I don't mean to diminish the pain the victims and their loved ones suffer, but the media has really tossed out a red herring and the politicians are having a hey day with it.

And what's this 26 violations? OMG why isn't something done after the 1st offense? Can a person have 26 drinking and driving convictions before they get more than 18 months? Oh, wait, probably in our soft system they can. You can probably mow down a bunch of innocent citizens in a DUI and get your license taken away (like that stops habitual drink/drivers) and drive again without ever being found out.

So I guess if I'm looking for a silver lining here, I'm having a hard time finding it. I'd have to say that we're equally soft on all sorts of violent criminal offenses in this country and neither the Conservatives or the Liberals have got a handle on it so far. I don't have much faith that politicians or political parties or more laws are the answer to the problem.

The answers are probably found in this thread, I've read some great ideas here. We can only hope that some politician will read this thread and see that somewhere in all these 19 pages, there is at least a starting point and some very good direction that doesn't have to be sensationalized in the media.

I'd love to have my faith restored in our justice system, but all I have to do is crack open the Globe or the Sun and I'm back to square one, shaking my head and wondering what the heck ever happened to common sense?

 

[The_Falcon]

And what's this 26 violations? OMG why isn't something done after the 1st offense? Can a person have 26 drinking and driving convictions before they get more than 18 months? Oh, wait, probably in our soft system they can. You can probably mow down a bunch of innocent citizens in a DUI and get your license taken away (like that stops habitual drink/drivers) and drive again without ever being found out.

I think you misread/misinterpreted what I posted. They would introduce new mandatory minimums for the 26 types of criminal code offences that one can commit/get charged with, like possessing a restricted weapon, possession of prohibited weapon, possession of restricted weapon know possesion is unauthorized etc.  Not you would have to commit an offence 26 times. 

Hatchet I don't want to hijack this topic too much so I will stick to the gun issue also. IMO no matter what any politician says right now, it's all rhetoric. There is no crisis in Toronto. There is no need for so much hysteria about gangs and violence and murder in Toronto. I don't mean to diminish the pain the victims and their loved ones suffer, but the media has really tossed out a red herring and the politicians are having a hey day with it.

It may not be a big crisis perse when compared to the US, but I for one don't want to get to that point where we have 400+ murders a year before we start to take action.  If we are going to get all worked up over murders, I would rather those numbers remain small.

So I guess if I'm looking for a silver lining here, I'm having a hard time finding it. I'd have to say that we're equally soft on all sorts of violent criminal offenses in this country and neither the Conservatives or the Liberals have got a handle on it so far. I don't have much faith that politicians or political parties or more laws are the answer to the problem.

 

True Canada in general is soft on crime when compared to our neighbours to the south, but it will take a huge change in the mindset of many people before we start seeing people sentence to 100 year in prison for child rape (as an example).  The liberals have been the ones in power for the last 12 years don't forget that.  Its hard for any opposition party to change/introduce new law in this country when you are dealing with a party that has large majority governments.  So I don't think it is entirely fair to say that conservatives have dropped the ball consider the current leader wasn't even an MP during most of Chretiens Reign.  Also they aren't planning on making new laws (cept 1 or 2 new firearms related offences), just strengthen what is on the books, remove the silly a hug a thug crap (conditional sentences, mandatory release), and put more boots on the ground.

The answers are probably found in this thread, I've read some great ideas here. We can only hope that some politician will read this thread and see that somewhere in all these 19 pages, there is at least a starting point and some very good direction that doesn't have to be sensationalized in the media.

  Were in an election, things are going to get sensationalized.

I'd love to have my faith restored in our justice system, but all I have to do is crack open the Globe or the Sun and I'm back to square one, shaking my head and wondering what the heck ever happened to common sense?

 
Did you read Thursdays Toronto Sun, were they explain how they (TPS) caught and convicted the duo who killed a teen in a Scarborough Hotel.

 

[GO!!!]

At least a few of the editorials posted here state the truth ( George).

This is not a Canadian problem. Gun violence in Canada, as has already been stated, is pertpetrated by Jamaicans in Toronto, Bikers in Ontario and Quebec, "Indo-Canadians" in BC, and to a much smaller extent, Natives in the west.

Having lived (albeit for short times) in all of these areas, I am of the opinion that only the aboriginals have a valid "beef" with our society - they are truly a "made in Canada predicament" and we have a responsibility to them.

As to the rest - this is nothing but a showcase for the failures of multiculturalism. Our mistake (as a society) was to encourage the populations of other areas to move to Canada, and keep their patterns of behaviour, as opposed to adopting new ones. As a result, problems that exist in Jamaica, now exist in Canada. We do not have a society which seeks to integrate immigrants into Canada, we Ghettoize them - and encourage them to co-operate - under the aegis of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". So we can't be too surprised when Jamaican problems show up in Jamaican areas of Canadian cities.

The solution? Model our immigration system on Australia's. All migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are free to apply from abroad, or to await processing in spartan, but humane detention facilities, until their identity, health, background and eligibility to enter Canada are determined. If they are successful, they are subject to a "one strike" rule, and deported sans property (if not executed)the minute they are convicted of a major crime, or a combination of minor ones, with a prohibition against them ever returning.

Admittedly, this problem is already quite advanced, and would pose a bit of a quandry, especially in regards to population growth, given that our immigrant populations are expanding far faster than our long tern citizen ones. I believe that it is a viable solution though, as it places the "onus" of good behaviour on the new canadians themselves, and not on some tripe that "society has failed them". If someone immigrates to Canada, and steals a car a month later, they have no-one to blame but themselves when they find themselves handcuffed to an immigration officer and dropped off back in their countries of origin.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Jack Layton should make up his mind which side he wants to bash more or shut up entirely. Preferably the latter. I'm sick of watching him gleefully jump on one band wagon then hitch a ride on the next one as it passes by. He hasn't got a hope in hell of forming a government and he knows it, so IMO, like the Green Party, he should also be left out of the debates because he is insignificant. Oh I know, the NDP and the Bloc held the balance of power but that's just too scarey to continue contemplating, so I won't.

I agree with the Globe and Mail articles posted previously stating that there is no crime epidemic. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of electors in Canada read the Globe and Mail, the ones that do will weigh the policies of the two main parties in Canada against their own personal beliefs and vote for that party, or maybe, like I did, vote for a proven candidate even if you're sick to death of the party that candidate is affiliated with. The vast majority of Canadians will watch the 6 o'clock news and depending on which side is better at convincing us all that the other side is a bunch of yo-yo's will get the votes.

Pretty interesting stuff, in light of todays Globe and Mail comments on the NDP and law and order. [NDP described as the 4th largest party in Parliament(?) WTF is with that little twist on pecker size?]

NDP joins law & order pushBy STEVEN CHASE
Friday, January 6, 2006 Posted at 4:04 AM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Vancouver — NDP Leader Jack Layton is proposing to spend $1-billion over several years fighting crime in a bid to boost the party's credibility on law and order, an issue that has rocketed to the top of the election agenda after shootings in Toronto.

The NDP was the fourth largest party in Parliament before the House dissolved for the election, and has little hope of forming the next government, but it will try to convince whichever party is leading the country to adopt its proposals.

Mr. Layton's law and order policies, to be announced Friday at a news conference in Surrey, B.C., rely heavily on community reinvestment and prevention.

He will propose tougher criminal penalties for suspects apprehended with guns, sources say, and that young offenders aged 16 and over who employ firearms should be treated as adults under the law.

The NDP will propose funding their policies by using the sales of the proceeds of crime seized by police and investing the preventative cash in the neighbourhoods where the assets were discovered.

Sources confirmed Mr. Layton will propose the cash be used to fund youth initiatives that keep kids off the street, such as recreation centres, scholarships and mentoring programs.

Party sources confirmed other elements of the plan, which was still being drafted early Friday morning, include:

– $400-million to assist youth at risk.

– $200-million over four years to help victims of violence.

– $200-million to protect witnesses and encourage Canadians to talk to authorities without worry they could be tracked down and punished by criminals.

– $200-million to help cut down on the use of crystal meth, a popular street drug.

Other elements of the NDP plan include tough sentences for illegally possessing and selling restricted guns, beefing up police efforts to crack down on gangs, and moves to halt the flow of black-market weapons into Canada from the United States.

Reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

 

[NavComm]

I think you misread/misinterpreted what I posted. They would introduce new mandatory minimums for the 26 types of criminal code offences that one can commit/get charged with.... 

Yes, I did misunderstand it. That makes much more sense!

The liberals have been the ones in power for the last 12 years don't forget that.  Its hard for any opposition party to change/introduce new law in this country when you are dealing with a party that has large majority governments.  So I don't think it is entirely fair to say that conservatives have dropped the ball consider the current leader wasn't even an MP during most of Chretiens Reign.  Also they aren't planning on making new laws (cept 1 or 2 new firearms related offences), just strengthen what is on the books, remove the silly a hug a thug crap (conditional sentences, mandatory release), and put more boots on the ground.

Remember also that the Conservatives were in turmoil within their own party. I doubt they could have governed effectively while going through all the changes that were taking place within their party. I read an interesting story on cbc.ca about the top ten political scandals in Canada and it's not exclusive to one party or the other. Here's the link http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/scandals.html

Mandatory release is at the discretion of the parole board, which is supposed to be independent of gov't. It was actually Diefenbaker's Conservative gov't at the helm when the parole board was established in the late 50's.
 

Did you read Thursdays Toronto Sun, were they explain how they (TPS) caught and convicted the duo who killed a teen in a Scarborough Hotel.

No I didn't. I'm in Vancouver, I'd have to see it online. What did they do?

The solution? Model our immigration system on Australia's. All migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are free to apply from abroad, or to await processing in spartan, but humane detention facilities, until their identity, health, background and eligibility to enter Canada are determined. If they are successful, they are subject to a "one strike" rule, and deported sans property (if not executed)the minute they are convicted of a major crime, or a combination of minor ones, with a prohibition against them ever returning.

You bring up an interesting topic there GO!!, health. In 1999 boat loads of Chinese refugees arrived on the shores of BC. According to HepNet.com, a large percentage of them were carriers of HepB and syphillis.

We weren't very successful keeping them detained, although the governments of the day, both provincial and federal wanted them detained so they could be processed, judges were allowing them out on "bail".

Again, I think the laws are there, they just aren't enforced. Soft judges and bleeding heart parole boards make our system a laughing stock. Criminals know they are never going to be treated harshly in Canada and so it's a mecca for gangs of all colours and stripes.

 

[NavComm]

Whiskey, yeah, well Jack Layton can have all the policies he wants. Nobody has to listen to them because he's not going to form the government. If we end up with another minority government, it will most likely be the Bloc that holds the balance of power and frankly I have more faith in them being able to hold gov'ts feet to the fire if they decide to force the gov't to get tough on guns and gangs.

If Layton keeps playing footsie with both sides of the floor, soon no one will pay him anything but lip service. Oh wait, isn't that what they do now? He's like the snot-nosed kid brother that nobody really listens to.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Don't get me wrong, I think smiling Jack is not good for Canada, buthe will definitely make gains in the Toronto and Ottawa areas.  Maybe even large gains.

 

[NavComm]

I don't know that he will. I think the next few weeks will be telling. It will depend on several things, especially what spin the media puts on everything. Canadians are such fickle voters. They can turn on one issue.

I'm happy that all the politicians are at least reviewing their party positions on violence and gangs. I just don't have much faith in anything said in an election. The proof will be in the pudding as they say. Once whoever gets elected takes office, we'll see if anything changes.

Hopefully if the Liberals are re-elected, they will be talked out of their silly handgun ban. That IMO is not going to do anything but add another law for the criminals to ignore and law abiding citizens to be punished with.

If I had to make a prediction on the election, I would say it's going to be another squeaker, too close to call. I think the Bloc will get about the same or maybe a few more seats, the NDP might make a few gains in Ontario, but overall it's still a two horse race.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

You bring up an interesting topic there GO!!, health. In 1999 boat loads of Chinese refugees arrived on the shores of BC. According to HepNet.com, a large percentage of them were carriers of HepB and syphillis.

We weren't very successful keeping them detained, although the governments of the day, both provincial and federal wanted them detained so they could be processed, judges were allowing them out on "bail".

Again, I think the laws are there, they just aren't enforced. Soft judges and bleeding heart parole boards make our system a laughing stock. Criminals know they are never going to be treated harshly in Canada and so it's a mecca for gangs of all colours and stripes.

FYI--there are currently six countries that you can claim refugee status(including Iraq) from and you will not be turned away for any reason, including having a criminal record or an active disease like HIV or Hep.  We are so desperate to hand charity to these poor people :'(. The only cold consolation we have on this is by and large, most of the illegals coming into Canada are trying to get to the USA and will eventually be their problem.

If anyone is curious about the mind of a typical criminal, check out this tool:

http://www.baitcar.com/node/105/

Pretty standard.  Including the BS remorse and dedication to change his ways.  I wish we had these in  Windsor.

 

[Kilo_302]

Nearly all the firearms being used in these crimes are not registered, so I agree to some extent that law abiding Canadians who own firearms should not have to suffer under poorly conceived laws. Most of the handguns being used are to my knowledge being smuggled in from the US. Will arming  customs officers stop this? I doubt it. If a criminal is smuggling in a load of illegal firearms into Canada, not being able to shoot a customs officer without receiving return fire will not stop him. Being caught on the other hand will. So I think Canada definitely needs to increase the numbers of customs officers, thereby increasing the number of vehicle searches they can conduct (there may be an economic price for this, so it would have to be applied in a balanced way). I also agree with arming them, but only because they deserve such protection, not because it will help them find illegal firearms as the NDP claims. However, some Toronto gangs are using registered firearms that have been stolen from their rightful (and in most cases, law abiding) owners. The question becomes whether it is acceptable to limit the ownership of handguns in Canada even further. While I know many gun owners would be against such a proposition, how do you balance the right of someone to own handguns, which are only made to kill people (other than target pistols for competition purposes) with the possibility that such a law may save lives? I am not suggesting I agree with the latter opinion, because as an owner of several firearms, I would probably stand to lose some of them if restrictions on firearms were increased. But, I could never tell a victim of a shooting in Toronto (who may have been shot by a stolen gun) that my right to shoot off loads of ammo at my farm supercedes their right to not be shot while going to the corner store.

As for the crime and punishment side, I definitely agree with the Tories  ( and now the NDP  ???) that mandatory sentences for firearm related offences should be legislated. I disagree with the NDP that 16 year olds should be tried as adults automatically for gun crimes. The human brain is not fully developed until 21 in most cases, so I think that teenagers who commit crimes should be dealt with on a case by case basis, as they are currently. I think the overall answer lies in more investment for youth programs in areas of Toronto that are most afflicted with gang violence. Its been proven in the US that increasing sentences and applying the death penalty more liberally has not worked as a deterrent. 

 

[48Highlander]

While I know many gun owners would be against such a proposition, how do you balance the right of someone to own handguns, which are only made to kill people (other than target pistols for competition purposes) with the possibility that such a law may save lives? I am not suggesting I agree with the latter opinion, because as an owner of several firearms, I would probably stand to lose some of them if restrictions on firearms were increased. But, I could never tell a victim of a shooting in Toronto (who may have been shot by a stolen gun) that my right to shoot off loads of ammo at my farm supercedes their right to not be shot while going to the corner store.

And you'd have to be an idiot to see any correlation between the two.  That argument only makes sence if you assume that, were all handguns to be made "illegal", there would be no more shootings.  Anyone with half a brain knows that that's not the case.  Therefore your right to "shoot off loads of ammo" has nothing to do with their "right to not be shot".  You may as well have said "I could never tell a victim of a shooting in Toronto (who may have been shot by a stolen gun) that my right to eat porkchops for dinner supercedes their right to not be shot while going to the corner store".

 

[the 48th regulator]

Interesting article fromt he Toronto Star.;

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

DALE BRAZAO / TORONTO STAR​

Mike Hargreaves, who once urged Toronto police to buy Glock handguns, works outside his Orlando, Fla. home this week. ​

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.

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.

Police estimate about half the guns used in crime in Toronto are legally owned guns stolen in break-ins.

Just this week, police recovered three stolen weapons in two separate arrests: two firearms stolen during a break-and-enter in Caledon and a rifle stolen from a home in Hamilton.

Every year, as many as 3,000 firearms are reported stolen in Canada.

"I'm shattered to know that my guns are out there being used by people with no training and no morals," says the 70-year-old who says he was instrumental in Toronto police and many other forces switching from the traditional .38-calibre revolver to the Glock.

In an interview at his home, Hargreaves says he has no plans to return to face the charges. He says his guns were properly stored in a steel reinforced vault. Hargreaves, who casts himself as a victim, says it is common for the Toronto Police to charge a person who has been victimized. Hargreaves believes Toronto police are making him a scapegoat because "they can't catch the bad guys."

Top officials at the Toronto Police Service, like Chief Bill Blair, said they would not comment on the Hargreaves case because charges are pending.

In addition to his work as a lobbyist Hargreaves' curriculum vitae says he is a licensed, professional firearms and tactics instructor and lists as clients the Toronto Police Service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ontario Provincial Police along with York, Halton, London and Windsor police forces.

Hargreaves, a one-time bouncer from Liverpool, England, has worked with guns most of his adult life. He collects them, teaches police officers and armoured car personnel how to use them and is a founding member of the Ontario branch of the International Practical Shooting Confederation.

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."

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.

"I had a permit to purchase submachine guns, rifles and shotguns," the burly grandfather of four says matter-of-factly. "All the guns in there were training guns. There was nothing for sale, they were training guns and personal firearms."

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`If somebody stole a bus and ran over 12 kids, the bus wouldn't be at fault. ... But the minute it's firearms, it's "oh my God, it's firearms."'

Mike Hargreaves, gun collector and firearms instructor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To store his arsenal, Hargreaves brought in a monstrous safe. It was so heavy, movers had to take off the 500-pound door so the elevator could carry it to the 17th floor. By Christmas 2003, Hargreaves had $40,000 worth of guns locked in the safe. He said he had a permit issued by federal firearms officials and the permit was displayed beside the safe.

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

The daring high-rise burglary worthy of a movie script happened around New Year's, 2004. Hargreaves was in Florida at the time, where his son runs a security company.

The Gilder apartment building is at Midland Ave. and Eglinton Ave. E. — not far from where a gang turf war raged.

Hargreaves believes the thieves lowered themselves from an 18th-floor balcony, pried loose a wire mesh designed to keep out pigeons and entered through the sliding balcony door. Police are less convinced and think they came through the front door.

Working for two days, thieves used sledgehammers and blowtorches to blast open the 1,700-pound, concrete-and-steel Brinks safe. They made off with about 35 guns, including military assault rifles, machine guns, and semi-automatic pistols, a bullet pressing machine and dozens of rounds of ammunition.

The most dramatic, known use of the stolen guns was on Sept. 16 last year. A gun battle involving one of the stolen 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistols left three men dead in and around a BMW parked behind an Etobicoke building at 75 Tandridge Cres. Joseph Santos, 25, Donald Rawluck, 24, and Shane James, 26, were killed. A fourth man — Michael Matthew Scott — was charged with second-degree murder.

Det. Sgt. Terry Wark, one of the homicide investigators on the case, confirmed the Glock came from the break-in. Investigators say the shooting started after a dispute over a gun sale.

Police say they have now recovered about 15 of the guns since the New Year's break-in two years ago and that their investigations show the "Gilder guns" were also used in a downtown robbery and a road-rage incident, according to 41 Division Det. Const. Tom Imrie, who led the probe into the break-in.

After the break-in, police issued a warrant for Hargreaves' arrest, claiming the firearms were unsafely stored and improperly imported. The charge against him is not extraditable, so police have to wait for him to cross the border. He says former deputy police chief Peter Scott, a friend, has encouraged him to come home.

"I hate criminals with a passion. I've taught people to fight them all my life," he says.

The break-in and loss of "40 years of firearms" left him "clinically depressed." He received $20,000 from insurance — half the value of the guns.

Hargreaves, who seems to have a wireless earpiece for his cellphone permanently in his ear despite being "retired," takes reporters upstairs to an office and his wall of plaques and ribbons attesting to his 23 years as a gun instructor and his prowess as a shooter.

The centrepiece of this collection is a framed poster of the Toronto police's Emergency Task Force in action, signed by Peter Scott and several other officers.

He defiantly refuses to accept responsibility for the Gilder Dr. break-in.

"If somebody stole a bus and ran over 12 kids, the bus wouldn't be at fault. If somebody stole 50 pounds of dynamite and blew up a house, the dynamite wouldn't be at fault. But the minute it's firearms, it's `oh my God, it's firearms.'"

While investigators were stunned to learn that kind of firepower had been stored in a subsidized apartment in an area rife with gang violence, Hargreaves says he followed the law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`I've had a love affair with guns since I was a child. My dad said I'd grow out of it, but he was wrong.'

Mike Hargreaves, gun collector and firearms instructor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"There's no rule that you have to be there every minute, you don't have to live there, you don't have to sleep there, you have to have a licence on the wall," Hargreaves says.

While the doubling of gun-related homicides last year focused attention on the smuggling of guns from the United States, the Liberals' proposed ban on handguns has ignited debate whether a total ban on handguns would have any effect.

Several months after the spectacular gun heist, police arrested alleged gang leader Phillip Atkins, 22, and charged him with the break and enter at the subsidized housing unit.

Atkins is currently facing two counts of first-degree murder and four counts of attempted murder in connection with a spate of shootings of innocent people in Scarborough, all within weeks of the break-in.

Where have the other guns gone? There are suspicions they have been used in a number of shootings.

Although Atkins has been charged in connection with the Gilder break in, police have not linked any of the guns taken from there with any of the shootings he is alleged to have committed.

Atkins and co-accused Tyshan Riley, 23, are charged with the Jan. 25 slaying of Omar Hortley, 21, gunned down while walking to friend's house to watch TV in Malvern, a community in northeast Scarborough.

On March 3, 2004, gunmen opened fire on Brenton "Junior" Charlton, 31, and Leonard Bell, 45, who were stopped at an intersection over the dinner hour at Finch Ave. and Neilson Rd.

Charlton died, but Bell survived. Atkins and Riley are charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in that case, in addition to his other attempted murder charges.

Christopher Reid, 26, was convicted of the break-in and weapons charges after he was nabbed carrying a Beretta stolen from the apartment. He was sentenced to four years and three months in prison. Hargreaves, who has testified at a number of murder trials as a gun expert for the defence, said he is saddened by all the gun violence in Toronto.

But knowing police have a warrant for his arrest he is not making any plans to return to Toronto any time soon. He said Scott, his good friend, has urged him to return to Toronto to deal with the charges, but he has declined. Hargreaves says he has applied for a U.S. green card and if he leaves he believes he will be "deemed to have abandoned my application."

"He knows the warrant's out there. I don't suspect he'll be coming back anytime soon unless anything forces him," says homicide Det. Stacy Gallant, formerly of the gun and gang task force who swore out a warrant for Hargreaves' arrest.

Instead of returning to Toronto, he relied instead on a "former senior police officer" and his business partner to clean up the mess in his trashed apartment. After 30 years of living in Canada, he plans to make Florida his home. His son Michael lives nearby and runs a security company. Hargreaves and his wife bought their house for $199,000 US in October 2004. He no longer has the subsidized housing unit on Gilder.

In addition to helping police forces, Hargreaves' resume shows that he has testified as an expert witness on behalf of the defence in Toronto court cases numerous times. He suspects that is one reason the police have charged him — they don't like that he used his knowledge of guns for people charged with gun-related offences.

"I've never been charged with a criminal offence in any country I've lived in, Britain, Germany, Australia, Canada, `til this," said Hargreaves who says he has been stabbed twice, and shot once in the hand by an errant bullet on the firing range.

"I think I had two speeding tickets in 30 years."

While the incident in Canada has left a bad taste, Hargreaves remains unabashed about his passion.

"I've had a love affair with guns since I was a child," said Hargreaves. "My dad said I'd grow out of it, but he was wrong."


Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

That last thing that was needed was fuel for the ban of handgun advocacy.

dileas

tess

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

A really sad thought is that if the federal gun registry (estimated at around $2 Billion cost so far) were used instead to buy the estimated 7 million firearms (registered and unregistered as quoted at http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm), Every gun could be sold back to the government at a cost of $285.00 each.

Now if they only bought back unregistered handguns, they could most likely offer atleast $2000 per gun and I am pretty sure that would get alot more handguns off the street than by simply telling Canadians "OK now your unregistered handgun is really illegal so give it to us"

 

[Kilo_302]

Well there definitely would be a correlation between the two if the gun used in the shooting was stolen from a registered owner, such as myself. Now obviously if handguns were illegal to own in Canada, criminals would resort 100% to obtaining guns from the US and shootings would continue. All I'm saying is that there are two sources for the guns used by gangs. Theft from legal gun owners, and guns smuggled in from the US. I can understand why people would see the elimination of one of those sources to be a good start in reducing shootings. I have said I disagree with further restrictions on hand guns. But that doesn't mean people who agree with that idea are "idiots" as 48 Highlander so eloquently put it. It would mean that they just don't see the need for hand guns in Canada, and believe that legal hand gun owners, no matter how responsible, cannot ensure their weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. I think what you're getting at 48th and I agree, is that there is no cause and effect between registered firearms and shootings. But if a gun used in a shooting was stolen from a registered owner, that weapon becomes part of the equation, and therefore a correlation.

 

[TCBF]

"A really sad thought is that if the federal gun registry (estimated at around $2 Billion cost so far) were used instead to buy the estimated 7 million firearms (registered and unregistered as quoted at http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm), Every gun could be sold back to the government at a cost of $285.00 each.

Now if they only bought back unregistered handguns, they could most likely offer atleast $2000 per gun and I am pretty sure that would get alot more handguns off the street than by simply telling Canadians "OK now your unregistered handgun is really illegal so give it to us""

I am amazed at how normally lucid people on this site fall into a pile of jello soon as someone is killed by a gun.  You think punks carry guns to save $225?  No.  They carry guns to save their ass in the drug trade.

So here it is people.  THERE ARE 18,000,000 (that's 18 million for you hillbillies out there) guns in Canada!

There are also 18,000,000 (Hillbillies: see above) cars in Canada.  So...  everytime you look at cars you see, think of the guns you don't see that are safely stored, owned, used, and enjoyed that is not being used by some third world punk in Toronto or Edmonton or Vancouver.

It isn't the guns that are ruining our culture - our culture was built, secured, and defended by guns in the hands of our free citizens.  The problem in our culture is the people living in it who refuse to adapt to it and contribute to it and respect it's traditions!  And one of those traditions is the possession and use of firearms by free citizens.

The possession of firearms by free citizens is the cornerstone of democracy.

Tom

 

[kcdist]

That last thing that was needed was fuel for the ban of handgun advocacy.

Look at the source of the article. According to the story, the theft occurred over two years ago. Could it be just a coincidence that this story is running at the same time that an election is in motion, and the party that the Toronto Star supports has announced a 'handgun ban' for collectors? I think not.

A truly unbiased newspaper would also run an investigative piece on the relative ease of smuggling a handgun into Canada from the US.

As an aside, I challenge anyone to provide supporting documentation on the gospel that 'half' of the illegal handguns on the street are stolen from legitimate collectors and target shooters. I was a cop for eight years, and not once did I investigate or even hear of a handgun theft from a legal source, despite involvement or knowledge of numerous street seizures of handguns.

 

[48Highlander]

Well there definitely would be a correlation between the two if the gun used in the shooting was stolen from a registered owner, such as myself. Now obviously if handguns were illegal to own in Canada, criminals would resort 100% to obtaining guns from the US and shootings would continue. All I'm saying is that there are two sources for the guns used by gangs. Theft from legal gun owners, and guns smuggled in from the US. I can understand why people would see the elimination of one of those sources to be a good start in reducing shootings. I have said I disagree with further restrictions on hand guns. But that doesn't mean people who agree with that idea are "idiots" as 48 Highlander so eloquently put it. It would mean that they just don't see the need for hand guns in Canada, and believe that legal hand gun owners, no matter how responsible, cannot ensure their weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. I think what you're getting at 48th and I agree, is that there is no cause and effect between registered firearms and shootings. But if a gun used in a shooting was stolen from a registered owner, that weapon becomes part of the equation, and therefore a correlation.

The weapon becomes part of the equation, sure, but your ownership of it does not.  Would you be at all responsible if someone stole your car and mowed down some old lady?  Or if someone stole your baseball bat, and bludgoned someone to death?  Or what if they stole your shoelaces, and used them to strangle someone?

So what's the solution?  Obviouly your right to drive, play baseball, and have laced up shoes is not as important as someone's right to live.  Better make all those things illegal, eh?

 

[Blackhorse7]

48th, I'm sure we are all in agreement that there are many ways that a person can be killed, and by using many means to do so.  But Kilo 302 brings up a valid point.  Handguns are made to kill people.  There is no other valid purpose for handguns, other than target competition.  They are made to be highly portable, and concealable.  Why does you average citizen need a Glock .40 with a tactical light on it?  Or a Beretta 9mm?  Or ANY of the firearms whose design has been geared towards law enforcement or tactical operations?  I don't believe your average citizen needs a weapon like that.

The Criminal Code states that you can use as much force is as reasonably necessary to stop an act of violence being committed against you.  I can tell you this... if a person shot and killed a subject that had broken into their home, he better be able to say that he feared grievous bodily harm or death.  And even being able to say that, he better be able to explain how he had time to get to his properly stored firearm (in this case it would have to be locked up AND trigger locked or disabled), then get to his separately stored ammunition, and then deal with the threat to his life.  To say nothing of the fact that your average citizen does not or will not take the proper training, which must be an ongoing thing, to operate that firearm safely and effectively.  It's no different than a knife.  It can be as dangerous to you as to the person who you are defending against if you don't know what you are doing with it.