Friday, March 18, 2016

2016: Almost a shooting a week in Surrey - 3rd Update

Kevin Diakiw from the Surrey Leader is reporting that "Shots rang out in Newton again this week, bringing to 10 the number of confirmed shootings this year in a city recoiling from continued gun violence." That's almost a shooting a week.

Update: CBC is confirming a Scan BC is reporting that: @SurreyRCMP confirm shots fired near 132nd Street this morning. Believed to be targeted. People in the home are known to police.

2nd Update: Kevin Diakiw from the Surrey Leader is reporting that there was a shooting 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday in the 10800-block of 143 Street. This would be Surrey's 12th shooting so far this year, representing a shooting every six and a half days. It's all OK though. Bill Fordy did such a great job dancing naked in front of his coworkers they gave the clown a promotion.

The Saga Continues: Castanet is reporting that "shots fired in the area of 128th Street and 56th Avenue in the Panorama Ridge neighbourhood. Reports of gunfire came in just before 1 a.m."

Welcome to the wild, wild west.

East Van: Global is reporting that there was a targeted shooting in the East Vancouver area March 26th. One person was hit, but his injuries are non-life-threatening.


  1. Shootings are so common place now that they have fallen in the t.v. news reporting, at 6:oo p.m., to about the fourth item. that does not bode well for us. The media have accepted it as a common place occurance, one which does not meet their criteria of important news. Now it maybe that is what the politicians like and they having a rather close relationship with the MSM in B.C. one can arrive at their own conclusions.

    It is fortunate the majority of these shooters are not good at it or the murder rate would be much higher. On the other hand, the gangsters seem to have gotten better at getting to the ER on their own.

    if this keeps up, one of these days children are going to get killed, much like has happened in the U.S.A. At that point a lot of politicians and RCMP are going to have some explaining to do. The queen of photo ops won't be able to smile her way out of that one.

  2. Not one of these shooters has their guns lawfully.

    With this much commonality with villains being able to shoot almost at will, it makes perfect justification for the Canadian government to allow concealed (and open!) carry.

    Just like at the 7-11 the other week where the customer was able to save lives by carrying a loaded firearm (

    ANYONE who tries to claim guns should be restricted (or worse, banned) is out of touch with reality.

    1. Indeed. The current system where only the criminals have guns just isn't working. Sadly, instead of fixing the problem Stephen Harper instituted mandatory minimum sentences for possession of guns. So if you claim your right to bear arms for self defense, Harper has sent you straight to jail. The law should have read mandatory minimum sentences for use of a firearm to commit a crime but it doesn't stipulate that.

    2. Mandatory minimum sentences is not exactly a fair form of punishment, in my, admittedly sparsely researched area of this.

      The idea of the judge having discretion of sentencing gives acknowledgement to the concept that everyone is an individual and even every crime has its own individual circumstances surrounding it.

      I think Harper did such a thing because he wanted to do something about crime and to appear to want to do something about crime but being PM was so out-of-touch with what was/is really happening he acted like the legend of Marie Antoinette and the "Let them eat cake [if they are out of bread today]" slogan.

      Of course, historically she said no such thing, but modern mass-media from the USA certainly helped perpetuate such a myth (just like Washington Irving, another from the USA put forth the lie that people in Columbus' day thought the earth was flat in 'The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus' - no one believed the earth was flat then). Marie-Thérèse (1638-83) is the one credited with saying let them eat cake and Marie Antoinette did not even arrive at Versailles until 1770, by the way.

      An interesting note to all this, is the Conservatives commissioned a study on gun laws in Canada and the results returned stating that all firearms currently prohibited need to be un-prohibitited.

      Probably fearing some type of outrageous liberal media backlash, they (the Conservatives) did not act on the recommendations. They should have.

      They should also have been a lot more savvy at how to address the media in short, simple, no-nonesense terms and if and when things were taken out of context the media should have been pursued both publicly (Crown) and privately (individual law-suits against the perpetrators) in a constant and consistent basis until they media actually realized they have the obligation to be unbiased. Period.

  3. Min. sentencing laws only feed a corporate prison system, which I believe harper wanted to bring to Canada. it doesn't work. Min. sentencing takes the authority away from judges.

    The increase of guns will only result in more people being killed. So one guy in the U.S.A. got off a luck shot. Now lets look at how many people were killed in the U.S.A via guns. Certainly over 38K last year. That does not bode well. Australia has much tighter gun laws and they're doing just fine, as is Canada.

    Perhaps there ought to be more "survellence" of gang members, with stops to check for guns. Most people do not "practise" enough to be proficient in the use of guns. Just look at how often the gangsters miss.

    1. "Min. sentencing laws only feed a corporate prison system" lol I think that's a bit of an over generalization. We already have minimum sentences for murder. When VPD came up with the 30 strikes you're out they sadly weren't joking. As it is, the more crimes a prolific offender commits, the less time he does in jail.

      If someone is committing a prolific amount of property theft to pay for a drug addiction, then a minimum sentence of 3 months in prison without any drugs is not excessive and is in the offender's best interest. Mandatory minimums for possession of pot are just plain dumb. The privatized prison system in California where they are triple bunking inmates is a bad model to follow.

    2. "Australia has much tighter gun laws and they're doing just fun, as is Canada" - you did not read the report, did you ...

    3. Here's how well Australia is really doing.......

    4. lol Keep fighting the good fight.

  4. Of course she didn't. It's an interesting feature of collectivist thought (if it can be called thought) such that they are even more resistant than most to new information that calls into question or outright disproves whatever dogma they cherish. In addition, they seem to be completely blind to the contradictions in said dogma that are obvious when subjected to even the most cursory fact check. Lost cause most of them, e.a.f. and her continued parroting of the party line on gun related issues very clearly demonstrates that she has her mind made up on most things and finds security in that, even if what she thinks she knows is wrong. Strange how in life the people who claim to be the most open minded (or whatever else) usually aren't.

  5. The American corporate prison system is actually a very profitable business and these companies stock are traded on American stock exchanges. Americans elect their judges and many of them accept donations from prison corporations. One could come to a reasonable conclusion, they're all happy with the arrangement.

    Min. sentencing as I understand it, you commit a crime and there is a min. sentence for that crime, no deviation. Was not that keen even on the min. sentences for murder here in Canada.

    When you discuss prolific repeat offenders, that in my opinion is another category. the legal system could simply have 30 strikes and you're out law. the 3 strikes and you're out is a tad over the top. It destroyed lives and burdened the American prison system to the extent civil rights were violated.

    It would be worth discussing and amending rules for people who do fall under a category of prolific repeat offenders and having longer sentences for them. However, this business of labelling people and sending them to prison for life, is in my opinion too over the top, with the exception of serial killers, mass murderers, pedophiles, and repeat sex offenders. But that is a whole other discussion.

    There is an interesting documentary about the prison corporations in Colorado and the impact it had on the area and its people, both prisoners, staff, and the public.

    Smythe: I meant to type "fine". Not everyone agrees with the article you quote. Teen suicide dropped by half. that is enough to change gun laws. Mass shootings also dropped. What would have been interesting to find out is, did Australia increase mental health funding after they changed their gun laws?

    1. EAF, no has to "agree" with it; however that does not disprove it. The two are completely different things.

      I am sure someone diagnosed with cancer for an initial time does not "agree" with it, however, that does not negate the fact of it.

      As the saying goes, "You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is erroneous".

      As for incarceration, why the talk of rehabilitation versus punishment?! That's like "brain versus brawn". It is a non-sense argument.

      The ideal is to build both brain and brawn in the individual to the maximum potential possible.

      The ideal for prison needs to be both to punish the offender as well as to rehabilitate them.

      The punishment is a natural occurrence because of the action(s) the offender committed.

      The rehabilitation needs to be an occurrence because the offender will interact with other members of the community and society.

      Even if the offender is in isolation and faces a true "life in prison", they still interact with staff so they still need rehabilitation.

  6. Although I personally support the right to bear arms, I am forced to concede that the majority of Canadians do not.

    1. I have to ask - what evidence is your statement based upon?

      Sure, the mass media seems to present it that way but where are the statistics that actually prove this?

      The media and it's a basic propaganda and public opinion methodology to present something essentially as fact but not actually stating it IS a fact or specifics about their claims.

      For example, "Canadians believe ..." or "Canadians say ..." yet in reality, all that is is a plural - more than one. It could be literally anywhere from 2 to all. Yet, the numbers are not stated, they are only implied to give validity to the statement.

      Such as, "9 out of 10 dentists recommend... " (insert the finishing line of "supporting the big red machine") and a toothbrush or paste.

      That's a ridiculously broad statement. It does not mean 9 out of every 10 dentists. That would be impossible to poll every single dentist in the world.

      So, they get 10 dentists through a selection process and ask them a question(s) and then use those 10 as their evidence. Yet, people are gullible enough to believe that 90% of all dentists actually support this.

      Here is a very good documentary that was privately made that helps dispel many common fallacies and of how the false impression of authority gives a sense of credibility to various claims:

      It is called 'Here be Dragons" and is so-named because of the superstition of some sailors that in certain parts of the ocean there may be dragons.

      I cannot state I agree with 100% of Brian's claims (i.e. the part about inoculations and Autism as I have not researched that area and have heard conflicting research claims) but it is a very good educational program that ties in directly with many claims and assumptions made by the mass-media in Canada.

      Remember, it is how you ask a question and how you word it as well as the questions coupled with it that produce the answer. I have conducted polling myself and have seen the effects of questions' wording and placement. It is powerful and controlling stuff.

      That is why the result the government wants is always worded as a "yes" response in a referendum - no one really wants to be against, everyone wants to be for. It is that simple to skew and bias to get the results you want.

    2. True I should cite some angus reid poll but I'm basing it on my sad experience talking to people here. Any time I have ever discussed the right to bear arms, Canadians I speak with roll their eyes and criticize the American model. It has been the source of a great deal of frustration for me.

    3. Maybe it how you present the talk/argument. One young lady at university I was speaking with was going on about the "so-called" golden age of the 1950's. I patiently let her finish her rant and mentioned how wouldn't it be nice if we could have just one person in the household be able to have a job and that one job would pay for a new house, multiple cars, adequate food on the table, vacations, the ability to raise children out of poverty and have enough money to not only buy luxuries but also to save for the children's future. A far-off dreamy look came into her eyes as she was trying to imagine the ability to do this and I reminded her that was what the economic situation of the 1950's was like.

      She looked troubled at what she had previously blindly accepted from the liberal double-talk to make anything traditional look evil or a mere fantasy-that-never-was.

      She agreed that would be like living in a dream and admitted she wished it was still like that today. You can tell she had been troubled by the need today to get a Masters to be able to do what in the '50's you could do with an high school grade 12.

      Perhaps when you talk of firearms present the idea of how would it not be great if people could rely upon other people to protect them and not have to wait for the police. Of how the ability to protect one's family was always with them.

      Like the above of how you word your poll or referendum to get the result you want, you can do this with firearms.

      Like the young lady I mentioned above, just the slightest glimpse of the truth will cause people to actually stop and think and then question the lies they have been told. That is why lies have to constantly propagated and supported and reinforced. Otherwise they just disappear. The Truth, however, only needs the slightest of fair and honest mention and it drives the lies away.

      Which is why those who refuse to want to hear the Truth are like children screaming with their fingers in their ears and their eyes clamped shut - if that little bit of Truth actually gets in, the false walls they have been hiding behind come crumbling down.

    4. You are dealing with people who have been programmed from birth if they are under 40 to believe these things. Convincing such people otherwise is always difficult.

      "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" and "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted".

      -V.I. Lenin

      In such a fashion is a countries cultural fabric ripped asunder well within the span of a human lifetime. Not just on guns ether.

      Politicians/gun confiscationist types have repeated "We don't want to be like those Americans" or WTTE (words to that effect)so oven over 4 decades that they have become part of the Canadian outlook. I can tell you from personal experience that in the 70's in Canada, boys outside a city who were not yet in their teens owned a .22 rifle or maybe more, and boys everywhere ran around playing cowboys and Indians or "war" with toy guns. Inside a decade that all changed.

      Interestingly enough there was a study done in Britain (where they are about as anti gun as it is possible to be short of an absolute ban) a few years back that showed that boys allowed to play with toy guns showed lower levels/instances of inappropriate aggression than those that did not. They weren't all that happy about the results as, to no one's great surprise, this government funded study was intended to demonstrate the opposite..... Thank God for scientific integrity, because otherwise I've little doubt we'd never have heard of this study.

      "All your neat idea's and theories don't mean shit compared to reality".

      - Me

    5. I believe it to mainly be the baby-boomers in urban settings that were brainwashed the most about non-gun ownership in Canada.

      However, with the great proliferation of first-person shooters (fps) I have a strong feeling young men today in Canada are actually attracted to firearms and have developed a strong like for them. This can be seen in the proliferation of airsoft and paintball as sports.

      The baby-boomers are almost gone. Those few left will face their fears when their promotion of birth-control comes back to haunt them in the form of "Dying with Dignity" (euthanasia).

      You reap what you sow.

      I still see boys in the rural areas not yet in their teens carrying firearms in Canada; and it is very refreshing and reassuring.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.