Shootings and murder is up.

Dec 27, 2005 23:20

Toronto has a population of 2.5million and a metro population of 5.2 million. With a population at just over 550,000, Washington DC homicides peaked in 1991 at 482. That's just to put things in a little bit of perspective while considering the Toronto's crime wave of shooting and other homicides. It's still a pretty safe city, however the ( Read more... )

ontario, crime, gun control

Leave a comment

ghostwes December 28 2005, 08:16:50 UTC
Accessibility to handguns does increase the possibility of gun-related violence. That's a simple algebra, certainly. However, it can't be the only cause of this particular effect.

Way back in my youth, I had a bit of experience with gangs, though these gangs were quite different from the kind we see today. The gangs I knew were mostly well-off white kids, bored and living in the Toronto suburbs like Mississauga. Terrorizing people, looting stores for kicks, starting nonsensical fights with other gangs. I imagine many people in this community have never heard of gangs like the "Untouchables", but back in the 80's I knew how to recognize them and knew better than to cross them. Then there were the skinheads...

I can't help but feel like we're all way off on the solutions we're looking at for dealing with gangs. It doesn't seem to me that access to weapons is the problem so much as a nihilistic attitude toward life and other members of the community. The "Untouchables" had the same type of attitude, near as I could tell, but they would never have initiated a gunfight on Yonge street.

I don't think that increased jail-time or banning guns are more than band-aid solutions, and, in the case of the former, probably exacerbates the problem.

I don't know what it's all about. Bowling for Columbine posited some interesting theories, but ultimately blamed the wrong people (at least, in my opinion). It's kind of sad that Canada was held up as a counter-example in that film... and now look at us.

I can't help but think that Martin with his "consequences of exclusion" might be onto something, except that, with the gangs I knew, that exclusion was entirely voluntary.

So, basically, I don't know the answer either. I hope there is one though. I only have to cross the river into Detroit to see the logical conclusion to urban violence.

Reply

allhatnocattle December 28 2005, 10:25:17 UTC
What about gentrifacation? Yorkville was sure gentrified from when Neil Young and Joni Mitchell were there. I lived a few blocks from Rochdale and it was a quiet building. Cabbagetown and the Beaches were sure gentrified out of former roughness. Not sure that Regent Park or Jane/Finch could be gentrified without tearing it down. I mean I just can't see them selling condos in those neighbourhoods. If anything it just moves the problem around, like WashDC's problem went to Maryland.

You're right there were gangs of (not necessarily) white kids out in the burbs, but that's just play. That's immaturity. I mean it could get serious, dangerous even, but it certainly wasn't broad daylight shootings on Yonge Street. Not just brazen disregard but I don't think anyone even hated anyone that much.

I mean in Compton I can sorta understand that kinda anger. Facing discrimination every day, witnessing the inequality that seems separated along the colour line. Joining a gang gives inclusion, power, maybe even money and drugs. I get that. It's an attractive way out when faced against odds so great they seem hopeless. But in Canada the hopelessness isn't so strong along colour lines. At least I don't believe it is, not in a wage that explains the recent shootings.

Toronto is up to 77 homocides, eh? Something like that. That's not bad though. Still it's been brewing for a while.
It seems like nearly the whole world has more crime.
Maybe what we need is some population control.

Reply

_social_retard_ December 28 2005, 10:39:46 UTC
Whats gentrification?
And yeah it seems like there is a lot of crime and violence in the world today but I don't think population control (not that im sure what you mean by that) would be an answer, all it takes it two people to kill someone. what we need is to reverse the attitudes of today's world, change hate into something construstive. How? Fuck if I know.

Reply

allhatnocattle December 28 2005, 11:05:47 UTC
How? How about offering hope and opportunity.

Gentrification is where old neighbourhoods, usually in the inner city are remarketed. Usually tax values are reassessed at absurd overvaluations. Then owners can no longer afford to lowrent places, so over time the old rooming houses, old houses, old buildings slowly all get torn down and replaced or dusted off and renovated. Many of the old owners just sell because the market suddenly got hot but the idea of gentrifacation is to keep the area hot. The poor folks generally move out and are replaced with yuppies. Generally it works ouyt rather well as some places don't change hands and you get a mix of income levels in a neighbourhood, therefore an area becomes rather funky.

Population control. Yeah, forget that statement. I'm unhappy that I said that. It sounds cruel and I didn't mean it that way. Dumb choice of words. I just meant we're getting too big for our britches and we should've stayed at a comfortable population.

Reply

_social_retard_ December 28 2005, 11:34:12 UTC
Sounds like gentrification might really fuck up a lot of people with low incomes. I mean if you raise the rent, most can't pay and have to move and all that.

Reply

allhatnocattle December 28 2005, 17:21:53 UTC
That's the general idea. Get the undesirable elements to move on down the road. Sounds kinda mean. But the reverse happens as well, where a neighbourhood becomes poor and undesirable so folks with the means end up leaving for the greener pastures of the suburbs. The void they leave behind is inner city urban decay, while a ring of prosperity emerges and expands in the suburbs. Actually having a mix in a neighbourhood is usually healthy. Toronto and many cities in Canada have done a good job at acomplishing a healthy mix.

Reply

harry_beast December 29 2005, 01:42:28 UTC
That has been the main argument against gentrification, that it forces low income people out of their homes. Many of the neighbourhoods that get gentrified are in good locations for people who don't drive. Displaced persons have a tough time finding another suitable place in their price range.

Mind you, if a neighbourhood is overrun with crime and slummy neglected buildings, maybe a bit of gentrification would be a good thing.

Reply

ghostwes December 28 2005, 11:05:15 UTC
I do not see gentrification as a solution to the problem we are discussing. Indeed, I do not really see gentrification as a positive thing at all.

As I mentioned above, I think the white suburban gangs I grew up around are probably quite a bit different than the black urban gangs of today. I suspect that they do share some characteristics, but on the whole, they're likely more different than they are similar.

I'm always tempted to blame capitalism for these things, you know, as I do see it as being responsible for many of society's ills... but if the affluent white kids in the Toronto area can form violent gangs (and believe me, they were violent) then that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for that sort of analysis. Certainly, at least some gang activity can be connected to race and class, which I would indirectly connect to poverty and capitalism, but I don't think that's enough of an explanation.

None of the articles that I have read about this recent shooting even mention the race of the individuals involved, though it has been implied elsewhere that they were black. I think that's interesting in itself. For all I personally know at this point, the perpetrators may have been affluent white kids from Mississauga.

I don't know, man. I wish I had some answers. I'm really curious what the fuck is going on, but I can't claim to understand any of it. It seems like my old haunting ground is turning into a typical messed-up American city, and I don't like that one bit. I'll be watching the rest of this thread with interest...

Reply

rogula December 28 2005, 16:42:21 UTC
Might it be that the gang violence may stem from a feeling of "I have nothing better for me".

If in the early teens you don't see much that society offers, you have a shitty home life, you turn to a Gang as a way to belong to something. That leads to being introduced to influenced that only amplify that feeling that society as a whole can offer you nothing, while the Gang can offer you cars, booze, guns, chicks.... all for just belonging and doing the odd job for the leadership of the gang (family). The gang becomes all important to the individual.

It is a complex problem that will take complex solutions. You can just blame access to guns, or social policy, or lax punishment. You need to tackle all aspects of the problem if you hope to be successful.

Reply

binro33 December 28 2005, 17:34:35 UTC
It is a complex problem that will take complex solutions. You can just blame access to guns, or social policy, or lax punishment. You need to tackle all aspects of the problem if you hope to be successful.

I agree, each is a piece of the puzzle.

Reply

harry_beast December 29 2005, 01:36:40 UTC
None of the articles ... mention race ...

Some media suppress indications of race in their crime reporting. There is a lot of sensitivity about racial profiling.

Reply

ghostwes December 29 2005, 09:03:21 UTC
I realize this, yes, and agree with the methodology. I just find it interesting how most people have just assumed that the perpetrators were black. I assume none of us were present at the scene. It's probably a safe assumption, of course, given the other events of the year, but still... the assumption itself is a kind of racial profiling IMHO.

Reply

twio December 28 2005, 16:07:12 UTC
But in Canada the hopelessness isn't so strong along colour lines. At least I don't believe it is, not in a wage that explains the recent shootings.

I think the hopelessness is a big issue. I won't get into much detail as many others have already outlined what alienation can result in.

Access to higher education is also a problem, I don't have the study in front of me but I know statscan released a study that essentially said low-income participation is down. This contributes to the feeling of exclusion these youth face. Essentially they feel as if they have no choice but a life of crime and actually don't care if they die.

Reply

shammondo December 28 2005, 16:37:58 UTC
Are the teens committing these crimes part of the Mike Harris generation?

Reply

twio December 28 2005, 16:39:54 UTC
All youth today are facing the consequences of the Harris policies.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up