(Toronto) Police Tell Stories Of Illegal American Guns Seized In Project Blackhawk

[iverglas]

Source: City News and other Canadian media

Near the end of what's been one of the most violent months Toronto has seen for some time, police say they've crippled the operations of various organized crime groups that banded together to smuggle guns into Ontario from the United States in exchange for drugs.

On Friday the Ontario Provincial Police released more details about the two-year investigation dubbed Project Blackhawk that authorities say dealt a serious blow to the large criminal network.

"We arrested 38 individuals linked with multiple organized crime groups and laid in excess of 440 criminal charges against these individuals for offenses relating to firearms, drugs, and proceeds of crime," OPP Insp. Steve Clegg, unit commander of the provincial force's weapons enforcement section, explained.

... "Through the efforts of our crime gun analysis team these guns were traced back to Chicago and linked to a shipment of 237 firearms that have been smuggled into Ontario," Clegg explained.

Read more: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_24011.aspx

---

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/446529

Handguns destined for Toronto streets were swapped for drugs in a lucrative Canada-U.S. "pipeline" run by a sophisticated, white-collar organized crime network, Toronto police said yesterday.

Black-market Viagra, cocaine and guns were seized and 27 arrests were made by police in a massive sweep of communities across the city and the GTA yesterday.

Officers and Emergency Task Force members raided residences on well-to-do Bellair St. in Yorkville, as well as in the Yonge St. and Sheppard Ave. area, as part of the crackdown.

... The case against the multinational crime ring began to unravel in 2006 when U.S. law enforcement tipped off Waterloo Regional Police that a cache of 237 handguns, originating from a retailer in the Chicago area, had been smuggled into the country.

Guns came in at the border between Detroit and Windsor, police said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080620.ARREST20/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

As often seen in the past, the core of the operation is alleged to have been a two-way pipeline: Cocaine and handguns were being shipped to Canada, while methamphetamine, ecstasy and Canadian-grown hydroponic marijuana were smuggled south.

Seized yesterday were 59 kilograms of methamphetamine, 400,000 ecstasy tablets, three kilograms of cocaine, 60 kilograms of marijuana, 35 handguns of different calibres, tens of thousands of illicitly manufactured Viagra-like pills, and several vehicles said to have been modified to conceal guns and drugs.

And a related raid in April on a huge alleged drug lab inside a Mississauga industrial complex turned up an even larger haul: more than 4,000 kilograms of methamphetamine and other drugs.

... "This is not a street gang," Chief Blair said. "This is a highly organized, highly successful criminal enterprise."

Yes, the war on drugs is a bad thing.

And the victims of the US war on drugs include the children and teenagers and adults being shot dead on the streets of Toronto -- by people with firearms trafficked into Canada from the US.

Because firearms laws in the US are so appallingly lax that criminals in other countries can be supplied with firearms procured in the US that they could never obtain in their own countries.

Good neighbour, eh?

[Duke Newcombe]

1. Two words. "Root causes".

Until you fix those, the motivations to kill one another, you can argue against US gun laws until the end of time, but you will not stop the violence. This is a crime and criminal problem, not a gun problem.

Duke

[iverglas]

2. blah blah blah

The motivation of the traffickers here was money. The motivation of the people to whom the firearms were to be trafficked is money.

We have an indigenous crime and criminal problem in Canada.

Our gun problem is in significant part a foreign infestation.

And children and other bystanders are not being shot dead in the streets in crossfire by root causes, they are being shot dead by firearms. Some of which were procured in the US and trafficked into Canada by white-collar criminals, for money.

But I guess you don't need to read any facts. You have the answers.

[Duke Newcombe]

4. Always nice to have honest dialog with you.

Because "it's for teh childrun" is always a viable argument-ending neutron bomb to used by you, eh?

Again. Root causes. What about that do you not understand?

Duke

[slackmaster]

7. Um, no

...they are being shot dead by firearms.

You should know better than to attribute willful bad behavior to inanimate objects.

[Paladin]

17. Meaningless Semantic Argument

Everybody, and I mean everybody, realizes that guns don't get up and shoot by themselves. "Being shot dead by firearms" is a perfectly understandable phrase, and there's no point in pretending otherwise.....

[iverglas]

20. it may have been a bit of an inside joke

I believe I caught the slackmaster out saying the same thing once. If not him, numerous of his cohort. ;)

[Paladin]

40. Numerous Of His Cohort Is Right

Our gun-obsessed brethren (and sistren) need to be called out on such things more often.....

[saigon68]

18. Don't argue with him slack

He is actually in the wrong forum.

Guns are as American as cherry pie.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. It IS a gun problem.

The people are not being killed by hammers, or samurai swords. They are being killed by guns.

There is no other weapon that can be wielded to such deadly effect by no more than the twitch of a finger. It makes killing easy.

It's not about motivations - it's about capability.

[slackmaster]

9. Take guns out of the equation, and there would still be a criminal problem

Take criminals out, and guns are no longer a problem.

[iverglas]

10. did you get that from the Reader's Digest?

Take guns out of the equation, and Jane Creba would be alive.

Take guns out of the equation, and Ephraim Brown would be alive.

Take guns out of the equation, and James O'Keefe would be alive.


Just three bystanders shot dead in recent times in Toronto. A teenager, a child, and an adult. All three of them unintended victims, shot in crossfire.

What criminal problem would they be having if there had been no guns in their equations?

[slackmaster]

11. Alternatively

Take the individuals who shot those people out of the equation, and they'd still be alive.

What criminal problem would they be having if there had been no guns in their equations?

Was there no violent crime before the 14th century, when firearms were invented?

[iverglas]

12. maybe you could try again

What criminal problem would Jane Creba, Ephraim Brown and James O'Keefe be having if they had not been shot dead in crossfire?

Maybe you could speculate as to whether they'd rather have whatever criminal problem that might be ... or be dead.


Take the individuals who shot those people out of the equation, and they'd still be alive.

Ah. And we now have a test to be administered at birth to determine who these individuals are, do we?

[slackmaster]

13. If the criminals who were involved in the shooting had been in jail where they belonged

There wouldn't have been any cross-fire.

Ah. And we now have a test to be administered at birth to determine who these individuals are, do we?

Why would such a test be necessary?

[iverglas]

14. how soon you forget

I'd have to look the other ones up -- but the "criminal" who killed James O'Keefe had a permit to possess a handgun, as a member of an approved gun club. And no criminal record.

What might you suggest he should have been in jail for?

[slackmaster]

21. A few are always going to slip through the cracks no matter how tough you make the laws

Big fucking deal.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Most of the crime is committed by criminals but you insist on throwing up this crap.

Then when asked to back up your meaningless anecdote with any real statistics you will not respond. Even you know that most of the crime is committed by previously convicted criminals.

David

[iverglas]

25. yes, and if only I were like all you good "liberals"

I'd be calling for all these criminals to be locked up for six lifetimes.

How does this fit in with all that "root causes" talk? I've just never been able to figure that one out.

Crime is caused by poverty, despair, unemployment, inequality ...

People who commit crimes should be locked away for life and fed balogna sandwiches ...

I get so confused.



I have no idea what statistics you are pretending to have asked for. If you're in need of some statistics, you can always try google.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. I know a lot of poor people who aren't criminals.

I know a lot of unemployed people who aren't criminals. I know a lot of people who have been treated unfairly and they aren't criminals either. Poverty, despair, unemployment and inequality may be contributing factors in some crimes but it's not the root cause especially of violent crimes.

David

[iverglas]

29. tell it to Duke Newcombe

and everybody else who claims that crime cannot be addressed until the revolution, or the apocalypse, cometh.

Guns aren't the problem, it's poverty.

Guns aren't the problem, it's criminals.


The presence of firearms in a community and society is a CAUSE of poverty. The violence and crime and fear and intimidation and illegal business activity that are all possible ONLY BECAUSE of the firearms present are all CAUSES of underdevelopment.

If the criminals didn't have guns, how the hell would they keep up their side of the war on drugs? How would they acquire and protect territory and supplies, and terrorize communities and populations (we're not just talking the USofA or even just North America, you know), if they did not have guns? With slingshots?


Frankly, it's too obvious how clueless the lot of you are about absolutely everything that is relevant to this discussion, except your own interests. You don't know anything about how organized crime operates, you don't know anything about the mechanisms of social and economic development, you don't know anything about the legal and constitutional and political constraints on combatting crime. You just know how nice your pixels look to your eyes, and how essential it is that nobody be the boss of you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. In some places in Africa they do it with machetes.

The presence of firearms causes poverty???? If I follow your logic, the US should be one of the poorest countries in the world. If you don't think people have the capacity to intimidate and commit violence without firearms then it is you that is clueless.

David

[Duke Newcombe]

42. So, by extension, you support the War on Terra, then?

Because those towel-wearing darker people over there just wanna shoot us "just because", right? No "root causes" there, right? So, disarming and killing them is peachy, because there are no "root causes" such as supporting despots, meddling in internal politics, taking natural resources, or any junk like that to be preoccupied with, eh?

Somehow, Iverglas, I don't believe you're thinking this whole "gun thing" all the way through.

Duke

[michreject]

33. Some people commit crimes because they're just mean

Not because they're poor, desperate, unemployed or a feeling of inequity.


Spelin.

[iverglas]

34. once again: don't be looking at me

I'm just saying how unutterably stupid it is to give them firearms, regardless of why they commit crimes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. And again who has advocated for giving criminals guns????

No one but you always throw it out there.

David

[booley]

44. That's a false argument

There's no reason why criminals cant' still be arrested AND illegal guns controlled so as to make those criminals less lethal.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. Build a fence and pull out of NAFTA, that should take care of it.

[saigon68]

19. Good advice for them ---Eh !!!!

[The Straight Story]

5. So... those gun laws in Canada are being obeyed and all is well?

see, we alway said the criminals wouldn't obey the gun laws...

[iverglas]

8. such a clever lot

Such demagoguery on display.

I'd hoped that some of the real democrats in the vicinity might be interested, or take an interest, in the effects of their domestic policies on innocent people in other countries.

Yes, friends, firearms laws and policies in Canada DO work to keep firearms out of the hands of many people who should not have them and who would have them if it were not for those laws and policies.

Why are you imagining that firearms have to be smuggled into Canada if those people are to be able to get hold of them?

Fuckin' duh, is all that comes to my mind.

If it were not so criminally easy to procure large volumes of firearms in the US -- and we are talking mainly about handguns here, the criminal's weapon of choice -- there would be a lot less for organized criminals in the US to trade for drugs from Canada. Guns for drugs. It's a pretty simple equation. If the gun crop on one side dried up, so would the drug crop on the other side.

Who is shooting who's self in the bloody foot here, eh?

Legalize drugs, please -- certainly, if nothing else, cannabis. Then there will be nothing on this side of the border to trade for your gunz. And we'll be able to go ahead and legalize it ourselves, as we've wanted to do for years and been unable to do because of threats to shut down the border to legitimate trade if we did.

Yes, we're more vulnerable to such actions than the US is. We could threaten to shut down the border to legitimate trade if the US doesn't do something about its criminally lax firearms laws and policies. And our economy would wither.

Because yes, we're a small country. We have 1/9 the population of the US, we have internal barriers to economic development relating to climate and geography, and we are an exporting economy.

And it's always charming to see members of Democratic Underground suggesting that because a population is smaller and more economically vulnerable, it should sit down and shut up, or commit economic suicide, because its big bully-boy neighbour has no concern for the interests of anyone but itself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Maybe we should build that wall.

It's a pretty simple equation. If the gun crop on one side dried up, so would the drug crop on the other side.

That's funny I'd say most transactions are drugs for money. Hard to believe Canada's appetite for guns is equal to the appetite for drugs in the US. I guess we know where all the "gun nuts" are now. Maybe we should build that wall to keep all you psychos out.

David

[slackmaster]

31. I have a better idea - Annex Toronto and the whole lower third of Canada along with it

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!

[iverglas]

32. and as one of my fellow countrypeople was just saying

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3359380&mesg_id=3359667

hahahahahah.

Here:

:donut:

Tim's, of course.

[Duke Newcombe]

38. The Horton's donuts and Meat sandwiches are enough reason to annex Canada.

Don't even get me started on wine gums.

Get used to your new American overloads and their guns. :)


Duke

[michreject]

39. The 222's weren't too bad

if I recall.

[Irreverend IX]

15. So what do you think would be more productive?

In light of your stated goal of reducing drug trade-related violence in Canada, would you rather:

a) Promote relaxed drug laws in the US

or

b) Promote more restrictive gun laws in the US

Anyone with a brain supports relaxed drug laws, including most of US youth. And once US drug laws have relaxed, Canada's laws will be able to relax as well, and the violent drug-runners will go out of business. Option A has the potential to destroy the root of gang violence rather than hacking at the branches.

Option B, on the other hand, will be a massive uphill battle in the US. The anti-gun members of Congress can't get an "assault weapon" ban passed right now, and any federal legislation that would impact the importation of illegal firearms from the US would have to be a lot stricter than a law banning rifles with certain combinations of modern features.

It should be pretty obvious which cause is a better use of time and money.

[iverglas]

16. gosh, I dunno

But hey, you could try reading my post in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3360891&mesg_id=3361149

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. You have stated that gun laws in the US were not your concern.

So why are you posting this?

David

[iverglas]

26. you have misquoted me

Why are you doing this?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. I don't think so, it's been a few months but you said it.

When I have some more time I'll try and find the post. I was quite surprised when you wrote it.

David

[iverglas]

30. you do that

and when you find it, you quote the whole thing, and then retract the false statement and apologize.

Of course, given that you haven't presented any substantiation, you'd do that now if you were wise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. I don't have to quote the whole thing.

I simply quoted one sentence. When I find it I'll post the link. SInce you asked me to post the whole thing I'm guessing you know that you said that sentence.

David

[iverglas]

41. So I'd just like to thank my fellow Americans

for the outpouring of interest and concern we have seen here about the reality of how your domestic laws and policies in the United States affect your good and faithful neighbours.

Keep those guns coming, and we'll supply you with the body count at the end of the year, 'k?

Nothing to see here now, click on along.

[Duke Newcombe]

43. Don't worry, Iverglas...we'll keep you safe.

Until we need your natural resources and Northwest Passage...then get the hell out. :)

Duke

[CHIMO]

45. Sounds

Familiar.

You should be running for a prominent political office.

We need more like you.