Sunday, August 23, 2015

Surrey Shooting



CBC is reporting that there was a shooting in Surrey 9:00 PM last night. "According to police, witnesses called 911 to report that the drivers of a silver Honda Civic and a Ford Mustang were chasing each other, with gunshots being fired between the cars. Officers located the Mustang, detained its three male occupants and found at least one bullet hole in the car."

14 comments:

  1. Nice to see that gun control thing is working so well......law abiding citizens jump through hoops and if they break the slightest of the odious restrictions that "their" government has foisted upon them without their consent they lose their guns or the "privilege" of further ownership.

    Meanwhile any gangster wanna be who has the $2K worth of drug sales profits to buy a $600 gun on the street can have one. Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. well letting "everyone" have a gun isn't going to solve any problems. Just look south of the border.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right now only the criminals have guns. That certainly isn't working.

      Delete
    2. As Trailrunner has correctly pointed out previously, those USA cities/states with the highest amount of gun control have the highest crime rates and rates of gun violence. Those states with the most freedom to own and carry firearms (whether open carry or concealed) have the lowest crime rates and least gun violence/injury/death rates.

      Delete
    3. Yes, by all means look south. Area's with strict gun control dominated by the Democratic (Socialist/"progressive") have sky high crime rates. Area's that allow concealed carry much less so. This isn't even debatable. Also, "everyone" isn't "allowed" to have one. Criminal record, drug use, mental issues, and your favorite, spousal abuse, all disqualifiers to be able to legally buy one in a gun store. Do such people get them? Of course, just like criminals. For extra points class, tell me how many of these "mass shooters" DIDN'T turn out to have mental health issues.....that's right kids, NONE, including the one today who shot a journalist and her cameraman. It's not normal everyday folks you have to worry about. People like that tend to stay out of trouble, gun or no gun. Because they have priorities. Jobs and families and stuff.

      Stop confusing your politics with reality.

      Delete
  3. guns won't solve the problem. Like what would having guns in the general population do for the drive by shootings. Having people rush out of their homes, guns blazing just doesn't cut it. Most people just don't know how to shoot all that well.

    Having guns in the home kill children. just check the stats in the U.S.A on how many children, that includes toddlers get killed in their homes with their parent's guns.

    We have a gang problem in the lower mainland and that is not going to be solved by putting more guns out there. Gangsters may just break into homes and steal them. what we need is effective policing and we just don't have it in Surrey. they are grossly understaffed. I would suggest we have a problem in many areas because we have the RCMP which has loyalty to Ottawa only. They don't report to the local voters and/or politicians. Where ever you have increased poverty and hopelessness you will run into gang violence. When people have nothing to loose, they take chances they might otherwise not take. B.C. has developed a gang tolerant attitude and people know, as do the gangsters, it takes the police awhile to get there and then to deal with it. A few more officers in the field. A few more gang units. A few more Crown counsels. A few more judges.

    Ms. queen of the photo ops is too concerned about LNG to deal with the issues, so things will only get worse. Who knows we may get as bad as El Salvador--note the article in this past weekend's Globe and Mail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't solve the problem but it sure would be a good start.

      Delete
    2. I agree that people like e.a.f. should not own or carry guns, folks whose thought processes are largely emotional in nature are exactly the wrong people to exercise that kind of responsibility. Such folks just cannot separate the idea of law abiding folks carrying guns for self defense and to discourage predatory behavior from gang members doing drive by's.

      Perhaps we can train gangbangers to be better shots so they don't hit innocent bystanders? :tonguecheek:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAKQ1p6pb3g

      Delete
  4. there is no need for the average citizen to carry guns. the fear mongering that goes around is just silly. There is enough statistical evidence that crime has been declining for years. We just hear more about it because it is cheap and easy to report.

    trail runner it may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who don't carry guns because they know they would use them and that isn't a good thing either.

    Most of the gang wannabees we have in B.C. simply do not know how to shoot. They can't seem to hit much. from the number of bullets used in these shoot outs some one is making money because it is doubtful these boys are making their own bullets.

    Carrying guns has not done the Americans much good. Just look at their stats. We don't need that type of society in Canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having studied the history of firearm ownership in Canada, the simple fact of historical revisionism that has been perpetrated upon the populace of Canada is amazing. It is like Canadians were never firearms owners and this invisible border between the USA and Canada resulted in those to the south of the border being gun-toting trigger happy individuals while those in Canada lived in an imaginary peace and "la-la-land" where guns were never necessary.

      Nothing is farther from the truth.

      A simple perusing of Canadian merchant catalogues from the early 1900's prior to WWI shows that guns could be ordered freely without restriction and this included semi-auto magazine loaded firearms. In fact, one Eaton's catalogue has hand-guns for $4 while and Erector set (a building toy for children) for $7.

      There were no firearms licences back then. There was nothing prohibited. The extent of the laws was a simple annual renewal of a vow of good character in some urban centres (i.e. Toronto) and anyone with one could open carry or concealed carry at their will. It was not until immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe did anyone start to talk of limiting firearm ownership and then it was to new immigrants from outside of the British Empire.

      How times have changed and how brainwashed Canadians have become ...

      Delete
    2. Have you ever lived in both countries? I have. Like for numbers of years in both? I have.

      You have no idea what you are talking about. You blithely (or perhaps conveniently) ignore the correlation between falling crime rates and the change from 20-25 years ago as to how many states now have "shall issue" (meaning it is not to some bureaucrat or police chief who gets a permit) concealed carry laws. The Canadian (and even the internet) press does not report anything about it when a burglar forcing entry into someone's house at 2am gets shot and killed. This is far from an infrequent circumstance. Nor do they report it when armed robbers are shot and killed by their intended victims, as likewise is a fairly frequent occurrence.

      Fortunately this is not a "needs" based thing. I don't have to go and "mother may I" to any "powers that be" for permission to exercise my Constitution Rights. It's one of the reasons I no longer live in Canada and cannot envision doing so again.

      No one is telling you that you have to own a gun, or carry it. That is completely up to you. Your error is that you somehow have become possessed of the belief that it should be your place to determine what others may or may not do, because of how you "feel" about it.

      When I was a kid in northern Alberta in the early 70's, every 10-12 yr old kid I knew have their own .22 rifle, many had more than that, depending on thier parents level of involvement with guns or hunting. Sporterized surplus .303 rifles sold at the hardware store or HBC for $20-30 with a free box of shells. As the good Doctor says, "How times have changed", and I think most many would agree that it has not been for the better.

      Delete
    3. Sometimes the media does report of the benefits of gun ownership. Here is a news story about an 11 year old girl in Michigan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939607/Girl-11-hides-bathroom-closet-scares-burglars-shotgun.html).

      EAF, what would have happened to that girl if she did not have that gun and know how to use it?

      How many others ...

      Delete
    4. Many others. You have to consider that in many incidents where a firearm is displayed to warn a "problem child" that their victim selection criterion has experienced a "fail", the intended victim is not going to call 911 and say, "Hi, I just had someone try to rob me in the parking garage, but I showed him my Glock and he suddenly remembered that he was late for an urgent appointment elsewhere." Especially if they live somewhere the politicians prefer you to be a victim rather than that you should carry a gun. The police would then arrest the potential victim. Not many folks are stupid enough to do this, therefor that incident will never be reported and will not be considered in the FBI/DoJ Uniform Crime stats which are released every 2 years.

      Delete
  5. It's nice to see a thoughtful discussion on gun control. Although I totally support the right to bear arms, I realize that many Canadians do not. There are pros and cons to both sides of the debate. Gun control concerns me because that is the first thing any dictatorship does before it removes civil liberty. Yet no one wants to see guns in the hands of kids or guns used in domestic violence. The current practice of only letting the criminals have guns just isn't working.

    ReplyDelete