# Liberals want Handgun Ban



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Got this email from a trusted source.  Don't see it mentioned yet here:

_Well fellas...bad news....CTV news has just announced at 8:55 PM 
tonight that Prime Minister Paul Martin will announce tommorow that The 
Liberal Government will introduce a "Sweeping handgun ban in Canada".The 
announcement will be made in the Jane and Finch area of Toronto tommorow 
as part of the federal Governments "gun crime" initiatives. Sorry about 
this news guys but even I didnt believe how dangerous this guy is. Just 
thought some or all of you would like to know so that you could weigh 
your options if this is indeed announced tommorow morning.
                             Cheers for now,Mike._

Reactions, if true?


----------



## chrisf (8 Dec 2005)

Utterly ridiculous, how many, if any, of the hand guns used in crimes are bought legally anyway?


----------



## BKells (8 Dec 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Utterly ridiculous, how many, if any, of the hand guns used in crimes are bought legally anyway?



What does that have to do with it? A sweeping ban gives the police the power to take the handguns away from anyone they see, whether that individual is comitting another crime at the moment or not.

I applaud the move (if true)


----------



## onecat (8 Dec 2005)

This is purely for votes in the GTA.   The Liberals it won't change anything nor stop any gun crime, but it will look like their doing somethig and of course that's all thing need to get votes.   Canadians really don't a party that does something.   This leaves the Tories in a fix, as no matter how they spin it the media is going make them look like gun nuts, and they will over look the fact that crimes are not made with legally owned hands.

Thing is who knows if the Liberals will actually even do anything.. its just an election platform and paul Martin is as trust worthy as a tel-salesman.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Already discussed here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36886.90.html



			
				BKells said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with it? A sweeping ban gives the police the power to take the handguns away from anyone they see, whether that individual is comitting another crime at the moment or not.
> 
> I applaud the move (if true)



...and what reason should the government have to take away a handgun from a responsible citizen who owns one?   Or do you think that the government should have the arbitrary power to seize your private property?  Your statement above seems to make the supposition that anybody possessing a handgun is going to commit a crime with it ("at the moment or not").


----------



## onecat (8 Dec 2005)

"What does that have to do with it? A sweeping ban gives the police the power to take the handguns away from anyone they see, whether that individual is comitting another crime at the moment or not."

And if the police see you with a handgun your committing a crime anyway... and could take your firearm with current laws.   Its been while since I've read up the current laws but from what i remember if your taking a handgun any place it much be locked and can only from your home to the range or back again.   Bkells honestly this just for votes and won't us safer, only take rights away from Canadains who have not committed a crime.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with it? A sweeping ban gives the police the power to take the handguns away from anyone they see, whether that individual is comitting another crime at the moment or not.
> 
> I applaud the move (if true)



Do you really know what you just applauded?

Have you read through the forums and understand the facts of Canadian Gun Laws?

Or is the fact you reside near the Crystal Palace and the glint from the reflection of the Sun temporarely blinded you?

Ben


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (8 Dec 2005)

Wow, four replies while I was replying, you all took the words right out of my mouth.  Bkells, please give your head a shake, react with your mind not with the jerk of a knee.  I have a real problem with people who feel that they should be able to decide what I can and can not own (and a bloody glorfified chunk of metal of all things!), as long as I am not committing a crime with it, what business is it of yours!?

Planes


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Pretty much.   "Hey, I don't know anything about firearms, but it sounds like it will get rid of gangs!!!"  Is this how the Liberals get all of their vote?!?     :


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2005)

A few years ago the Toronto Police ran one of their gun amnesty  programs and guess what they did?
Turned around and sold the weapons RIGHT back to the public.  

"Ohhh yes but that was to help raise funds for the police department. You want the police to have more money to help better ensure your saftey don't you"

Real smart way to keep the guns off the street.

I wonder how many gang bangers and thugs with pistols this will effect. 

Instead of banning handguns why don't you keep violent offenders off the street longer?


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Dec 2005)

Yet another excellent reason to make a donation to the Conservative party national campaign, take out a party membership, and volunteer some time to defeat these arrogant liberal thieves.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Dec 2005)

So now the Liberals want to seize my legally aquired property when I have done nothing wrong?   What a shock!   :

When they brought in the long gun resgistry, they assured us that it wouldn't lead to confiscation.   I didn't believe them then, etc., etc....

I say we ban Liberals instead!

 :threat:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

And in other news, a US Sky Marshal blew away a guy that said he had a bomb in his backpack then ran at them...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html

Why does this stuff always happen when I am at the armouries??


----------



## DEVES (8 Dec 2005)

> Pretty much.   "Hey, I don't know anything about firearms, but it sounds like it will get rid of gangs!!!"   Is this how the Liberals get all of their vote?!?



Do you actually think that getting rid of guns will get rid of gangs. It would be nice but probably wont stop crimes ,murders, etc. Guns are just a part of the problem. People wont stop fighting or killing each other just because they don't have a gun.   They just might use a bat or a knife. Should we take all the bats and knives away from everyone. Maybe that will stop the gangs! :

They been trying to do something about firearms for quite awhile. Has anyone really done much?

DEVES


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Derek said:
			
		

> Do you actually think that getting rid of guns will get rid of gangs. It would be nice but probably wont stop crimes ,murders, etc. Guns are just a part of the problem. People wont stop fighting or killing each other just because they don't have a gun.  They just might use a bat or a knife. Should we take all the bats and knives away from everyone. Maybe that will stop the gangs! :
> 
> They been trying to do something about firearms for quite awhile. Has anyone really done much?
> 
> DEVES



All gun bans do is take guns away from law abiding citizens.  Criminals will find ways to get them.  Or make them.  (They used to be called "zip" guns I think).


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

MOLON LABE  :threat:








Stupidest piece of legislation ever -- Handguns are already registered -- 95% of the handguns seized in Crime where smuggled illegally into the country and never registered.  If I where PMPM I would think of enforcing our current laws - and adding more customs personale and put more police on the streets.


----------



## DEVES (8 Dec 2005)

They might also think of raising they pay for some cops out there. That would be money well spent. 



> If I where PMPM I would think of enforcing our current laws - and adding more customs personale and put more police on the streets.



I concure.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Dec 2005)

I am disgusted! Do a google search for'handgun ban canada'. It looks like those loser Libs are going to use this as a platform, and it might even include a more wider ban on other weapons. Sadly my predictions for over a decade ago are coming true.

Don't vote for these thankless Alpha Hotels! I might have to register thru the consulate here to vote (useless point - we all know the decision is always made in the east, so why bother voting west of T-Bay anyways. Sorry for my cinicism. I have not voted in the past 2 elections. I think maybe this time I should just to say I did.

Anyways, I think its all to late for us law abiding gunowners.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with it? A sweeping ban gives the police the power to take the handguns away from anyone they see, whether that individual is comitting another crime at the moment or not.
> 
> I applaud the move (if true)



It is this type of ignorant thinking that the liberals hope will get them votes


----------



## CBH99 (8 Dec 2005)

You don't even have to pool money to put more officers on the street, nor do you have to put more customs officers at the border to deal with this problem.  (Although having more of both would always be nice).

Enforcing the laws that are currently in place would be a GREAT start though!!

As a paramedic here in Calgary, I have yet to go by a single week in my job where I haven't heard of a court ruling, or been present for a court ruling, in which I was not absolutely shocked at the sentence for a given offence.  Just today, I attended court proceedings in which a man violently raped a 17yo girl, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 12 months house arrest and 12 months of paid community service.

What a f**kin' joke.  I actually walked out of the court room with a loud *sigh*, along with a police officer who was present.  If the Liberals are serious about getting guns off the street, and therefore reducing gun-related crime....why not actually put the criminals behind bars, where they belong, instead of slapping them on the wrist and letting them go again?


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> What a f**kin' joke.   I actually walked out of the court room with a loud *sigh*, along with a police officer who was present.   If the Liberals are serious about getting guns off the street, and therefore reducing gun-related crime....why not actually put the criminals behind bars, where they belong, instead of slapping them on the wrist and letting them go again?



Because that is the smart thing to do and it would alienate all those prison voters, and high forehead academic types.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Dec 2005)

Maybe our judges should be elected, not appointed...


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2005)

Just imagine how an elected judge would do in this left society it would be worse than now.

I wonder what impact an automatic 10 years added on to any sentence for a crime committed while in the possesion of a gun. No games no pleas automatic no discretion. Ahhh to ive in a conservative society, would it be nice.


----------



## Laps (8 Dec 2005)

Just read this in the news.... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051207/elxn_martin_handguns_051208/20051208/.  This outrages me.  I am not the typical redneck NRA fan that some people may stereotype as a gun fan, but I do own a couple...  

I bought 2 handguns so I can practice target shooting.  When I go to operations, I get to carry a handgun.  Notwistanding that it it three times as old as I am, I normally get only 5 mags a year (50 bullets) to train and qualify with it.  This is why I bought my pistols...  Now, the same government that weakens me as a soldier by not letting me practice is contemplating taking my own firearms away from me?!?!

I am getting sick and tired of labelled a potential killer because I own firearms.  Even at Chapters, you can no longer buy gun magazine because "they lead to violence".  The other day when I went to that store, there where "Cannabis today" magazines on the shelves...  because these and the whole legalization of pot surely doesn't lead to violence????

The gun registry, a Liberal government initiative, as cost over $2,000,000,000.00 and what has it done???  Still murders in T.O., still got 4 fine police officers slained by a wacko...  So, will the handgun ban do anything really usefull for crime prevention?  I think not.  

I will be writing a letter to my MP to stress these points and others.  I know some of you are in the same situation as I am, and probably think the same way.  I recommend that you look ahead and consider writing to your MPs for the same reason.  Once this ban comes, it is going to be pretty hard to get things changed.


----------



## Monsoon (8 Dec 2005)

Well, a friend of mine was just shot dead in Vancouver last weekend, so suffice it to say that I find myself warming to the idea of a handgun ban.  Couple of points:
a) Yes, this is intended to win the Liberals the urban vote (not just in T.O. either), and it will work;
b) Yes, handguns used in crimes are seldom registered and the laws already in place should have been enforced better, but imagine how much easier that enforcement would be if the police could know that every handgun they see is illegal;
c) Handguns (unlike rifles or shotguns) are designed for portability and intended primarily to be used against people.  Very few people live in neighbourhoods dangerous enough to warrant owning a gun for protection and self-defence can be achieved through less lethal technology (mace, tasers, a shotgun full of rock salt, etc);
d) Regarding the personal liberties infringement argument, the government can already seize my property if it's a kilo of cocaine or a switchblade.  Life in a liberal democracy involves compromises made in the interest of the public good; annoying for recreational cocaine users and handgun enthusiasts, but generally for the best.


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Dec 2005)

Apparently it isn't just handguns.  It is to incude all restricted and prohibited firearms.  Time to make a donation and/or do some work on behalf of your local Conservative candidate.  

Hamiltongs, How dare you compare me and other gun enthusiasts with cocaine users!  That crack was offensive and un-called for. By the way, this isn't a liberal democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy with a Westminster parliamentary system.  This shameless attempt to shore up dwindling support in the GTO is going to backfire. This crap will in no way make the job of the police easier; in fact it will make it more difficult as they will lose the support of those that are affected by this Liberal party crap.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2005)

I dare ya to say that on a soap box in Jamaica town with a can of mace to protect you. I can agree hand guns are for killing and nothing more but an all out ban wont do anything for the problem, there are more guns on the black market now then ever before due to this legislation.


----------



## mover1 (8 Dec 2005)

"Dudley Laws, of the Black Action Defence Committee, a group devoted to ending gun violence in Toronto, has also disagreed with tougher sentencing.

"What we want is for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to empower and give the community the capacity to make the immediate and intense intervention that is required to deal with our young people," he said."

Absoloutley, what youth needs now a days is a good swift kick in the ass. And parents need a good swift kick in the ass to start parenting. If we keep on letting people get away with things because its their right to do whatever they feel or however they feel they should do it then we as a society have to take actions a well to guide these individuals along the right path.
Lets not hide behind the human rights code, what about societies right. This type of behaviour is a cancer, we should be doing all we can to get rid of it. 

How come we don't have a national knife registry?
Or a hammer registry, they kill and maim just as much don't they.....


----------



## onecat (8 Dec 2005)

"b) Yes, handguns used in crimes are seldom registered and the laws already in place should have been enforced better, but imagine how much easier that enforcement would be if the police could know that every handgun they see is illegal;"

Sorry to hear about friend, but banimng handguns sure won't any easier for the police.   The people who use them in crimes have illegal ones not legal bones.   As to your point B) if the police see your handgun they react they really don't care if legal and take action anyways and ask questions afterwards.   If they see your legal handgun then your doing something wrong as having a ;egal handgun doesn't mean you can just walk around with it like in the States.   maybe your getting two countries mixed up.

Banning handguns will not this country any safer, if want another knee jeck law that does nothing to help look at Ontario and its recent banning of pitbulls.   the smart thing would be make it crime if your dog attacked someone and to put that person in jail, but the liberal react is just ban the breed.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Life in a liberal democracy involves compromises made in the interest of the public good; annoying for recreational cocaine users and handgun enthusiasts, but generally for the best.



Wow - from the guy who thinks that being a blue-collar scrapyard worker means you're a dope incapable of ascending the ladder to politics comes another doozie!   Crackheads and recreational gun owners on the same moral plane.   You're really aiming for the title, eh?

Tell me this, if getting rid of guns will help to reduce crime why does Switzerland, armed to the teeth, have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world?


----------



## Monsoon (8 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Tell me this, if getting rid of guns will help to reduce crime why does Switzerland, armed to the teeth, have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world?


Because they're armed to the teeth with rifles related to mandatory reserve military service, not handguns.


----------



## sigpig (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Because they're armed to the teeth with rifles related to mandatory reserve military service, not handguns.



You are a better man than I for taking on this crowd over banning handguns   

I didn't feel like dealing with the headaches.


----------



## sigpig (8 Dec 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> How come we don't have a national knife registry?
> Or a hammer registry, they kill and maim just as much don't they.....



Because it's _so easy_ to kill multiple people, from a distance, in a matter of seconds, with a knife or hammer   :


----------



## SoF (8 Dec 2005)

WTF....well the Liberals just lost my vote; if they had it to begin with. From one gunho to the next, this handgun ban wont solve anything, everyone knows these guns are just smuggeled from the states. Just another reason to go concervatives.


----------



## 2 Cdo (8 Dec 2005)

Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation when applied to firearms. But what do we do after banning all firearms and the murder rate keeps climbing (funny enough due to unregistered weapons)? Does the liberal party then decide to ban knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, pens, golf clubs and sharp metal rulers because they can be used as a weapon? Those of you who think this is a good idea better be careful what you wish for because you never know where this will end!

 :soldier:                Liberal Party of Canada


----------



## onecat (8 Dec 2005)

Because they're armed to the teeth with rifles related to mandatory reserve military service, not handguns.

"You are a better man than I for taking on this crowd over banning handguns   

I didn't feel like dealing with the headaches."


How banning handguns going to solve anything or lower the crime rate? Are the Liberals going to pay fair market rate for the guns they are stealing from legal gun owners.. I highly doubt it, although it will some how cost Canadians millions of billions more than they came.  This is purely an election policy, hopefully city people like me will see it for what it is... crap.  and refuse to vote for a party that has done nothing to stop the flood of illegal gun across the border.  Funny its the people who obey the laws get punished..... again its a Liberal party things, but Canadians seen to love it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Because it's _so easy_ to kill multiple people, from a distance, in a matter of seconds, with a knife or hammer     :



How many multiple murders have been conducted with handguns?  Honestly?  It's a short range weapon.  Nutters usually go for an assault rifle - more accurate at distances greater than 10 feet.


----------



## Teflon (8 Dec 2005)

:threat:


----------



## Teflon (8 Dec 2005)




----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Because they're armed to the teeth with rifles related to mandatory reserve military service, not handguns.



...and handguns are more lethal weapons?



			
				sigpig said:
			
		

> Because it's _so easy_ to kill multiple people, from a distance, in a matter of seconds, with a knife or hammer    :



...and show me how many times somebody has killed multiple people, from a distance, in a matter of seconds with a handgun.

Why is the gang-violence focusing on the guns and not the gang-violence?   Stabbings and swarm-beatings are just as prevalent.


----------



## childs56 (8 Dec 2005)

I have found it appalling that the government would use a situation such as the rash of shootings to be a huge part of their voting platform.
The fact that gangs and gang related deaths are on the up rise in TO is the reason for the realities of life for these people. 
If once only once we could ban gangs, and the meetings of gangs. To search out, disband   and if needed destroy the members of such groups. This in itself would solve 99.9% of the problem of gun related violence. 

Our society has falling into a rut. The rut is connected to all the rights and abilities that we have gained over the years. The fact that TV portrays most of our family values, starting when we were kids makes one believe that the shows of today that advocate gang violence and say it is the way of life for them is correct.   The bottom line on this is that the government should ban any and all music, tv, movies, specific clothes, etc that directly relate to gangs. 
These people whom say they are stars and music writers whom are trying to portray a message to the youth to stay out of violence. Are in fact portraying that violence is allright. "After all look at me I use to be a gang banger and now I am a rich super star". 
Untill we as a society can and will take reresponsibilityor our actions and the actions of others we will be plagued by the killings that go on. 
Our bleeding heart mentality is what has gotten us into the sisituation where the kids have grown up to be these insubordinate, selfish, power mongering, individuals where at the whim of repercussion can and will get off with their crimes. 

The shirt "guns don't kill people, I kill people" really stands out in this situation.   I am willing to bet that MOST of the people that get shot or stabbed in TO and other cities are usually involved some how and some reason into the situation that end resulted in that shooting. Far to often we see the local media interviewing the family, whom them selves are wearing gang colors and or insignia of some form or another. They are saying oh my son/daughter is innocent, they had nothing to do with the situation, crying their eyes out. (ya ah haaa really I believe you). 

What is doing a hand gun ban going to do? Not nothing other then piece of mind for those whom really have no clue as to the reality's outside of their little world. We can ban what ever we want, where we want and it wont make a difference. We need to ban gangs, we need to start discourging the use of gangs as a way of life for people. The repercussions need to be up to and the use of death for this. 
The rights of gangs members need to be removed, no more voting, or health care,right to a fair trial, if you go to jail you work no pay busting rocks for my and other people whom will and have retired's gardens. your reformation will be digging holes and busting rocks. You can star in a movie that portrays your way of life as it was, is and going to be for the remainder of your life. Busting rocks and digging holes.    I have a new movie name.   "Bustya Rocks and the diggers" staring your local gang members, Ice cube, 50 cent, puff daddy and the local TO boys. 

Banning hand guns only hurts the lawfull people, not the gang members. Ban the gangs and get rid of them and you will have a safer place.   

Guns don't kill people, People kill people.   

   I want to state this again, I do feel the real tragedy is when Innocent bystanders get hurt or killed.


----------



## 3rd Herd (8 Dec 2005)

Given that it is again election time and all of our wonderful poiticicans are out in public could this legislation not be deemed a measure of self protection. Remember the bumper sticker : if its toursit season are we allowed to hunt them.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Dec 2005)

I don't really see how this handgun ban will cut related crime to any great degree, given that the majority of illegal firearms are likely coming up from the US. If it was a situation where domestically produced/sold handguns were the prime source for criminals, I could understand how the elimination of the supply might affect handgun crime but I don't believe that's the situation. 

The ban may very well affect accidental deaths from legally owned handguns, but I'm not really sure how big a problem that is. 

There was some mention here of the problem of seizing property. If I'm not mistaken, the Liberal plan calls for a compensation regime (IE buy-back). The government already has the right to seize your private property - it's called taxation. Lets not get Orwellian about the whole thing and start fantasizing about how our government is turning tyrannical and denying us the ability to "protect ourselves". We're not in the Hobbesian state of nature here and the "I need my gun for protection" argument is one of the weakest ones available. 




			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> A few years ago the Toronto Police ran one of their gun amnesty   programs and guess what they did?
> Turned around and sold the weapons RIGHT back to the public.
> 
> "Ohhh yes but that was to help raise funds for the police department. You want the police to have more money to help better ensure your saftey don't you"
> ...



The gun amnesty program, if I'm not mistaken, allowed people to turn in their ILLEGAL firearms without fear of legal repercussions. Re-selling those illegal firearms to legal gun owners isn't putting the guns back on the street, it's taking them from criminals and giving them to "responsible" legal owners. 



			
				Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Maybe our judges should be elected, not appointed...



Bad idea, in my opinion. The position of judge is not something that should be filled according to how well the person can campaign or how pretty they look, it should be filled according to the professional competency and qualifications. Electing judges just ensures that they approach cases with a publicly cemented bias (IE their election platform). 



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> By the way, this isn't a liberal democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy with a Westminster parliamentary system.   This shameless attempt to shore up dwindling support in the GTO is going to backfire. This crap will in no way make the job of the police easier; in fact it will make it more difficult as they will lose the support of those that are affected by this Liberal party crap.



Firstly, we're a liberal democracy for all intents and purposes. The monarchy hasn't played a significant role in the day-to-day politics of the country for quite some time. Characterizing our system as a liberal democracy describes the reality of Canadian political ongoings better than constitutional monarchy. 

As for the police losing support because of the Liberal ban, I would imagine that would generally occur amongst the imbeciles of the populous as anyone with half a brain would realise that the police aren't the Liberal party and are just doing their jobs according to the laws set forth by the government.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I don't really see how this handgun ban will cut related crime to any great degree, given that the majority of illegal firearms are likely coming up from the US. If it was a situation where domestically produced/sold handguns were the prime source for criminals, I could understand how the elimination of the supply might affect handgun crime but I don't believe that's the situation.



This is why I like you despite the fact that your a fire-breathing commie.  You make sense when it counts.


----------



## BKells (8 Dec 2005)

Wow, four replies while I was replying, you all took the words right out of my mouth.  Bkells, please give your head a shake, react with your mind not with the jerk of a knee.  I have a real problem with people who feel that they should be able to decide what I can and can not own (and a bloody glorfified chunk of metal of all things!), as long as I am not committing a crime with it, what business is it of yours!?

Planes[/quote]

What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings. Or shoot on a range to practice killing other human beings. I'm sorry, maybe it's fun to shoot a handgun on a range, but your personal enjoyment is superceded by the need to protect our society. Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands.


----------



## mdh (8 Dec 2005)

Keep hand guns - ban the Liberals


mdh


----------



## BKells (8 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I don't really see how this handgun ban will cut related crime to any great degree, given that the majority of illegal firearms are likely coming up from the US. If it was a situation where domestically produced/sold handguns were the prime source for criminals, I could understand how the elimination of the supply might affect handgun crime but I don't believe that's the situation.



I agree with your point, however I'm going to counter that you are being outrageously vague. I think both of us would need to see the statistics about where the criminals actually get their handguns before we can assume that they are being smuggled from the states.


----------



## UberCree (8 Dec 2005)

There goes any semblance of training for those of us that take our military or police careers seriously.   Now the keeners will only get to shoot once or twice a year like everyone else that is unqualified to use firearms properly.   


I blame the Mohawks for all of this.   They are the ones running th guns from the U.S. to Canada.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Well, a friend of mine was just shot dead in Vancouver last weekend, so suffice it to say that I find myself warming to the idea of a handgun ban.



I've got a friend whos mother is brain-damaged and parapalegic due to getting hit by a drunk driver.   Should I find myself warming to the idea of a ban on cars?   Or should there be more focus on making sure those who aren't responsible enough to operate one aren't able to do so and those that hurt and kill others while doing so are taken off the street due to their lack of social responsiblity?



> b) Yes, handguns used in crimes are seldom registered and the laws already in place should have been enforced better, but imagine how much easier that enforcement would be if the police could know that every handgun they see is illegal;



Umm, think about this one for second.   Do you know how the existing laws for handguns work?   Obviously not.   Unless the law enforcement officers spot a guy in his house or at a range than a person with the handgun will be breaking the law.   They are restricted firearms.   If the police follow your advice and start trolling ranges and gun-owners houses on for handguns, all the law enforcement officer has to do is ask for the PAL and the legality of possession can be established.

So that is a pretty weak point.



> c) Handguns (unlike rifles or shotguns) are designed for portability and intended primarily to be used against people.   Very few people live in neighbourhoods dangerous enough to warrant owning a gun for protection and self-defence can be achieved through less lethal technology (mace, tasers, a shotgun full of rock salt, etc);



Designed primarily for use against people?   How many handgun owners in Canada buy theirs to use against people?   According to stats put up by Glorified Ape a while back, 4%.   Your thoughts on security and self-protection are irrelevent - is it really your business how and why a person purchases a handgun (or any gun) if they do so within the law?

Another weak point.



> d) Regarding the personal liberties infringement argument, the government can already seize my property if it's a kilo of cocaine or a switchblade.   Life in a liberal democracy involves compromises made in the interest of the public good; annoying for recreational cocaine users and handgun enthusiasts, but generally for the best.



Generally for the best? Why is recreational coke use illegal?   Because it supports a black market economy run by organized crime and it is a highly addictive substance in which recreational use can quickly denegrate into substance abuse.   As well, its effects tend to be absolutely disastorous on abusers - I've seen this with my own eyes watching a few people head down the drain.   Marijuana, also banned, isn't - which is why I support its legalization.

How can you possible draw a comparison?   A person who is shown to responsible enough (through licensing) and legally aquires a firearm is by law required to properly store it.   There is no harm to society here.

Anyways, I had to dig back for Brad's excellent comments on the issue as they seem to apply here:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Security is not a sufficient argument for gun control.   I can find lots of examples of prohibitions which will serve a greater "public good" than banning some or all firearms.   It is unfortunate some people spend their lives quaking in fear of life itself.   Those opposed to firearm ownership on security grounds are irrational - I can think of no other way to describe a whimsical approach to risk management.   "Snowmobiles and swimming pools and ski hills and imprudent/unhealthy sexual practices OK. Guns bad."   In the absence of their ability to formulate an informed policy on public safety grounded in proportionality - eliminate the greatest risks first - I will thank them to respect the pre-eminence of liberty over security....>
> 
> Nearly everyone pays taxes and nearly everyone makes use of the essential services of government.   Here's a better example: I propose to seize and destroy (without compensation) all automotive products capable of exceeding 120 k/h because there should be no reason for anyone to unsafely exceed the maximum speed limits of the land.   How do you feel about that?   Am I intruding on something that makes you feel uncomfortable yet?
> 
> ...



Unprincipled egoist seems to fit the bill....


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings. Or shoot on a range to practice killing other human beings. I'm sorry, maybe it's fun to shoot a handgun on a range, but your personal enjoyment is superceded by the need to protect our society. Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands.



Same applies to you, Mr Kells.   What's the point of owning a Ferrari that can go 280km an hour.   Is it really not your business on why others do what they do provided it is within the law.   Would you object to somebody telling you that your enjoyment of your stack of porn magazines is "superceded by the need to protect our society" and that you should give them up?  False notions of security is a pretty lame excuse to be curtailing public liberties.

Read Brad Sallows' post above - you to are most likely an unprincipled egoist.



			
				BKells said:
			
		

> I agree with your point, however I'm going to counter that you are being outrageously vague. I think both of us would need to see the statistics about where the criminals actually get their handguns before we can assume that they are being smuggled from the states.



The statistics are on these forums if you care to look.   Slim had the info and posted - the Toronto Police Service found that most handguns on the street were illegally acquired from the States.   Same deal with Vancouver and its lucrative cross-border drug trade.   Where the hell else are these guys getting them from?   Do you think that a 17 year old gang-banger can get his PAL and walk into a store and purchase a restriced weapon?

I still fail to see how punishing law-abiding citizens is going solve a problem of kids on the street shooting each other over drugs and turf.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> Wow, four replies while I was replying, you all took the words right out of my mouth.   Bkells, please give your head a shake, react with your mind not with the jerk of a knee.   I have a real problem with people who feel that they should be able to decide what I can and can not own (and a bloody glorfified chunk of metal of all things!), as long as I am not committing a crime with it, what business is it of yours!?
> 
> Planes
> 
> What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings. Or shoot on a range to practice killing other human beings. I'm sorry, maybe it's fun to shoot a handgun on a range, but your personal enjoyment is superceded by the need to protect our society. Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands.



Umm...no....we have safe storage laws in Canada.  Look them up, then run off at the mouth.  The fact that my gun could be stolen doesn't make me a criminal - it makes the guy stealing it the criminal.  Punish him, not me.

See the other posts on law enforcement officers, security guards, etc., who rely on skill with a handgun to perform their professional duties as to "why we need them."  Add competition shooters to that list.


----------



## Kal (8 Dec 2005)

The negative responses in this thread towards this ban are fully supported by own beliefs, so there is no reason to reinterate them.  I just find it very discouraging that such laws could be put into place.  If it goes through, don't be surprised to see break-in's, thefts and home invasion rise dramatically.


----------



## Blue Max (8 Dec 2005)

During yesterday's drive home CKNW had on as guest a Prof. of Criminology and Social Sciences or something to that affect, from Simon Fraser University.

He was asked If in his opinion a total ban on hand guns would have any effect on the murder rate in Canada, to which he replied No. 

In his words the problem is not guns (long/short) held by legal owners, but rather the criminal element of society that glorifies the power  of the gun and are associated with gangs or criminal activity, but have no social stability in our society. The problem is that these people come from dysfunctional families, they do badly in school, they have no future options planed for other then gang association and/or criminal activity.

According to the learned radio guest, the death rate among legal gun owners, hunters and target shooters, has actually dropped slightly in last few years and leveled off. While death due to association with gang activity has risen.  Hence the guest went on to state that if the govt really wanted to do something positive about handgun homicides it would address the issue of gangs and lack of police resources to tackle the problem. 

Of course the next problem was also pointed out, in that even with more resources, the police are frustrated with the justice system ( crown council, judges) and the perception of being soft on crime.

The question of gun amnesties and what effect they had with safety on streets came up, to which the radio guest replied that of all the gun amnesties (there were a number in Toronto apparently), only legal gun owners had turned in old weapons. Not on any day thought, had one criminal type had a rush of conscience and handed in his "Saturday night special" or sawed off shotgun. So in effect gun amnesties do next to nothing towards reducing handgun related crimes.

God save us from the Liberal govt, promising magic beans to Ontario, so as to get re-elected. :rage:  

Vote Conservative.


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Dec 2005)

For wide distribution, provided with permission:


Media Release

For immediate release December 08 2005  

National Firearms Association, BC Branch

"The Liberal proposal to ban and confiscate various firearms from lawful owners is merely a cheap attempt to deflect attention away from liberal scandals and poor performance on law and order issues", said Sheldon Clare, President of the NFA's BC Branch speaking from Prince George.

"Taking the legally owned property of Canadians has nothing to do with dis-arming criminals," continued Clare, "Paul Martin should confiscate the illegal handguns used by criminals, not
those owned by law-abiding Canadians. He just doesn't get it. This is a knee-jerk reaction that will not affect the criminal use of illegal handguns by gang members, but rather punish hundreds of thousands of  law-abiding Canadians for the misdeeds of criminal gang members who don't obey any laws."

"The real issues are the Liberal Sponsorship scandal, the Liberal insider trading racket that is now coming to light, and the tremendous failure of the hugely expensive two billion dollar Liberal firearms control registry in controlling criminal activity," said Sheldon Clare.  He further stated:  "The problem is that the Liberals are a party that governs in isolation from the concerns of Canadians; this is a party that is so arrogant that it thinks that the taxpayer's money is its own.   Martin has done nothing to stop the flow of thousands of illegal handguns across our borders, and has done nothing to stop the Liberal revolving door sentencing system that has put dangerous criminals on our streets.  It would be better to take taxpayer money out of Liberal pockets and put it into fighting crime," concluded Clare.

-30-


For media information contact:

Sheldon Clare  President BC Branch NFA
Sheldon_Clare@shaw.ca
250-563-2804


----------



## dutchie (8 Dec 2005)

It seems to me that there is a clear difference in how each side approaches this issue. One side is looking at this from a dispassionate, rational, and logical perspective. The other side seems to be injecting emotion, and adopting the 'well, it couldn't hurt' theory. 

Fact: in order to posses a handgun outside of your home or a range, it must be locked in a case, you must have an FAC (restricted), and you must be transporting it in a direct route to or from a range/your home. Any variance on this is a criminal offence. 

In essence, handguns are already illegal to those that would use them in crimes. Unless your holding up the gun range, or going downstairs to rob your brother's porn collection at gunpoint, a criminal has to break the existing law to commit his crime. If illegal possession of a handgun has not stopped them now, what makes you think this new law will do the trick?

Fact: if a cop sees your handgun outside of your home or range, you've broken the existing law anyhow, and you're about to kiss pavement right quick. If your handgun is in a locked case on the way to a range, how can he see it? So the argument that "now the cops will know that every handgun they see is illegal" is crap. They already assume that. 

Fact: criminals use illegal weapons to committ crimes. Making them more illegal (not actually possible, kinda like being more pregnant) does nothing. In fact, it makes it more sexy: remember, being a shitrat with no regard for the law or others is cool to these vermin.

This new law gives the illusion of security to those that don't think critically or rationally. It sounds safer. But once you realize two things: 1- criminals don't mind breaking gun laws to kill people and 2- possession of a handgun outside a range/home or to/fro is illegal already, then this law is exposed for what it actually is: a campaign ploy to get votes by exploiting people's fears of violence, especially in the GTA.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> criminals don't mind breaking gun laws to kill people



Well stated throughout, but had to smile at this one.  I think they also break the law about killing people in order to kill people. ;D


----------



## dutchie (8 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well stated throughout, but had to smile at this one.   I think they also break the law about killing people in order to kill people. ;D



Well, it's just silly. Some gangbanger is about to mow down a couple of other gangbangers, but wait, here comes Super Paul!

"Not so fast, disenchanted young person! I now decree that your handgun is illegal! Take that!"

"Ah, shucks! I was just about to put a cap in his ass! But now I can't, cuz my gat is illegal! I wouldn't want to go to jail for killing this mo-fo with an illegal pistol! My plan is foiled again by you, Superpaul! It would have worked to, if it wasn't for you and those pesky kids!"


----------



## S McKee (8 Dec 2005)

The money used for the gun registry should be invested in more police resources and more prosecutors. The penalties for illegal gun use should be increased with minimum sentencing of 15 years for those that use a firearm while committing an indictable offence and this should be tacked on to the sentence for the crime itself, in other worlds sentence's would be served consecutively unlike the noz we have for sentencing now. Outlaw motorcycle gangs, street gangs known criminal organizations should be banned as a matter of public safety. Anyone wearing clothing that indicates membership in a criminal organization should be summarily arrested until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are not a member of such an organization. Un-handcuff the police and make easier for them to obtain search warrants etc.

By the way we don't live in a liberal democracy, Canadains live under a benevolent liberal dictatorship


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2005)

> -Fact: in order to posses a handgun outside of your home or a range, it must be locked in a case, you must have an FAC (restricted), and you must be transporting it in a direct route to or from a range/your home. Any variance on this is a criminal offence.
> -Fact: if a cop sees your handgun outside of your home or range, you've broken the existing law anyhow, and you're about to kiss pavement right quick. If your handgun is in a locked case on the way to a range, how can he see it? So the argument that "now the cops will know that every handgun they see is illegal" is crap. They already assume that.
> -Fact: criminals use illegal weapons to committ crimes. Making them more illegal (not actually possible, kinda like being more pregnant) does nothing. In fact, it makes it more sexy: remember, being a shitrat with no regard for the law or others is cool to these vermin.



Awesome. took the words right out of my mouth.
Anyone caught with a handgun outside of their home or at a range (Not locked in a case with a POL/PAL) IS commiting a crime already.
Unless police will be able to see into peoples homes how the hell is this ban going to change jack shit?

It's illegal to carry around a handgun right now, anyone doing it is breaking the law already.   This ban won't change anything.
Think gang bangers are gonna say oh shit these illegal handguns are banned now, we better stop carrying them illegally. 
Sure.


----------



## dutchie (8 Dec 2005)

This whole argument re: protecting yourself with firearms, while interesting, has nothing to with banning handguns. One does not need to justify the possesion of their own property to prevent seizure. In short, I can use my pistol to stir my soup if I wish. It's not the goverments business wtf I do with it, as long as I obey the law.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Tell me this, if getting rid of guns will help to reduce crime why does Switzerland, armed to the teeth, have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world?



And why Britian, which has outlawed firearms, had an unprecidented increase in violent crime, with criminals being the ones using the outlawed guns?


----------



## mover1 (8 Dec 2005)

WWJD?....read the article.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050313.htm


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2005)

I think the important points have been made.   It is an election ploy to push voters:

1) It helps anchor the portion of the Liberal base for which "no guns" is a strong enough belief to make a single-issue voting decision.
2) It steals the same base from the NDP.
3) It goads the CPC and anyone who might be mistaken as a spokesperson for the CPC to respond "angrily" and drive a few more middle-of-the-road "undecideds" into the Liberal camp.   The CPC (and supporters) must respond calmly and rationally.

This backfires quite nicely on the Liberals and casts a moral stain on the statists who support the ban. There can be now no doubt that the Liberal intention is to confiscate firearms regardless of any real social policy benefit.   It undercuts the philosophical standing of every statist who believes that freedoms may be infringed if there is a sufficient social good to be gained, because in this case the irrefutable data of crime in Canada do not point to legitimate firearm owners as being a significant source of crime or of firearms sold to criminals.   There is no social good gained proportionate to the loss of freedom.   It reveals the ignorance of everyone who doesn't understand the laws in Canada which already restrain lawful firearm owners and ownership - if they had any respect for the rest of us and a shred of humility, they'd abstain from voting and consider themselves disqualified by lack of basic social and intellectual competence.

>What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings. Or shoot on a range to practice killing other human beings. I'm sorry, maybe it's fun to shoot a handgun on a range, but your personal enjoyment is superceded by the need to protect our society. Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands.

The complete and final answer to the "what's the point of <X>" question is: there doesn't have to be a point.   It isn't given to you to decide how others are permitted to pursue happiness.   Which person or group of persons is appointed the guardian of all other rational adults of free will, with a mandate to decide what is acceptable to own or do, and what is not?   I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance and smallness of mind of people who see government as their personal hammer and all other people as nails.

What's the point of tobacco, marijuana, autos which can exceed 110k/h, skateboards, fast motorcycles, alcohol, unprotected sex with anonymous partners, backyard swimming pools in neighbourhoods with small children, television and movies which portray violence gratuitously, fireworks, bearing children who can't be supported, foods and beverages with no nutritional value, large living spaces, foods and cosmetics which can cause fatal allergic reactions in other people.

These are all things which are unnecessary, are chiefly for or a result of personal enjoyment, and create very real costs to society in terms of bills paid by taxpayers.   Shall we agree then to create a model society, in which no one is permitted to do anything which could result in a social cost?   You give up your unnecessary, harmful, and potentially costly pastimes, and I'll give up mine.   We will establish what the list of permitted recreations is, and then each choose freely from it.   If nothing on the list appeals to you and your life consequently seems destined to be joyless, feel free to execute yourself provided you do so at no cost to anyone else.   Perhaps you can pay someone to do it and create a net social good, since social goods seem to be the be-all and end-all of existence for your ilk.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

I just saw something kind of bizarre on CBC - a CBC newscaster (Suhanna Marchand sp?) expressing incredulity that this will do anything given that "don't we already have some of the strongest handgun controls in the world already?"

Other gems:   

"Is it really law-abiding handgun collectors we need to be protected from?"

"the money was previously announced"

"there's an election on"

"nobody's listening"

Paraphrased and perhaps misquoted but the tenor of her (and Carolyn Dunn's) statements was certainly interesting given the source.

What is the world coming to when CBC questions a gun control law?


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

I think that's just them being (in their minds at least) good journalists.

IF they didn't question this statement it would seem that they are not as impartial (they aren't impartial but love to look as thogh they are) as they claim to be.

Nothing more.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

What a cynic  ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I just saw something kind of bizarre on CBC - a CBC newscaster (Suhanna Marchand sp?) expressing incredulity that this will do anything given that "don't we already have some of the strongest handgun controls in the world already?"
> 
> Other gems:
> 
> ...



They're probably just pissed that Martin hasn't made funding the CBC his first campaign promise.

But seriously, this just shows how intellectually bankrupt the Liberals are.   No plan in place for combating violence or looking at other issues; instead they pull this out of thin air on the coattails of the murder in the church.   You cannot tell me it isn't a sleazy vote grab as so many others here have pointed out.   Hell, if even the media sees it....

Oh well, if it goes through at least cruise ships will be safe again...


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Well, a friend of mine was just shot dead in Vancouver last weekend, so suffice it to say that I find myself warming to the idea of a handgun ban.



Shot dead by a registered firearm, I highly doubt it! I lost a cousin at 49 yrs old two weeks ago by a heart attack so I guess we should ban all McDonalds and similar grease pits.

So then I guess you support the greater and mandatory use of public transport and the use of bicycles (in summer anyways) and the banning of all cars and especially high pereformace ones, as these kill more people that guns in Canada (irresponsible and intentional misuse), especially in the hands of drivers 15-25. 

Sure, lets ban all the guns, and what you have is only the police, defence forces, and the criminals left   : I am sure it will make the criminals life much easier.

On a more serious note, Australia has some of the harshest handgun restrictions, and yet handgun crime (and murder) continues to rise, and mainly due to ethnic gangs and related crime. We are an island continent, and yet illegal handguns pour in through our ports. Only 1/10,000 sea containers is inspected by Customs. 

Some handguns, yes have been stolen off brinks guards, and other licensed security firms, but RARELY does a legal registered handgun ever go missing. Yet .40 calibre Glocks and Norinco M1911A1 .45s are abundant, and easily appear in the hands of crims without serial numbers ever being on the recievers! Also cannot forget the loss of over 900 Glocks the police had stolen off the warfs in Sydney, the majority ending up in the middle eastern gangs of Sydney. 

After the murder of 35 people in Tasmania in 1996, the laws were tightened, yet the use of firearms by criminals carrys on. Its only the law abiding owners out there who have the pressures and restrictions, and to me that does not make much sense.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

Oh well, if it goes through at least cruise ships will be safe again...

...As long as they're sailing past Canada Mike


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2005)

Folks let make this REAL simple,
Crystal meth- banned
Heroin- banned
Drunk driving- banned

Now, just what does anyone with even a SHREAD of a brain think banning handguns will do?

And, once again, I speak as a gun hater.......so don't try and drop that one on me.


----------



## Danjanou (8 Dec 2005)

> Dudley Laws, of the Black Action Defence Committee, a group devoted to ending gun violence in Toronto, has also disagreed with tougher sentencing.
> 
> "What we want is for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to empower and give the community the capacity to make the immediate and intense intervention that is required to deal with our young people," he said."




Would that be the same cop hating racist Dudley Laws who was charged with and IIRC convicted of spousal abuse and running a refugee smuggling scam a few years back. Slap on the wrist for both as well IIRC. The same BADC who orchestrated the spontaneous (as in they just happened to find pile of briks to toss threw shop windows spontaneous) Yonge Street riot a few years back.

Yup great role model, there I definitely want to hear his input to this problem. Especially when it advocates against tough sentances and "intense warm fuzzy hugs oops I meant intervention"


Where's that frickin sarcasm smiley I was promised?

BTW Ceasar I hope you plan on cleaning that pistol after using it to stir soup.


----------



## bubba (8 Dec 2005)

So it begins,for now it's handguns next it will be shotguns and rifles.In my opinion the govt. should get rid of the young offenders act because these kids that get involved with gangs know theres nothing that can be done to them.When they turn 18 there not worried about jail because to them its there way of life.The act just gets them ready for harder crimes because they know the system better than any lawyer.Anyway back to the fiberals,if they start seizing guns there going to loose alot of votes in the east because a lot of us own guns for shooting on ranges and hunting .I voted liberal all my life,thats about to change.I would rather vote conservitive even thow i dislike there anti-east attitude,than vote liberal and loose my guns....THE LIBERALS WERE ELECTED TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY,NOT GIVIN THE GOD   GIVIN   RIGHT TO RULE IT.In my opinion most polititions are maggots and do not give a f**k about there constituants,just there vote .WARNING(If ya don't like my grammer or punctuation.....kiss my ass)rant off.


----------



## UberCree (8 Dec 2005)

I am pissed.  The more I think about this the angrier I get.
They want to turn me into a criminal (I will not give them my firearms) because they are afraid to enforce laws against criminals.  I guess I am an easy target.  I have never been accused or convicted of a crime in my entire life.  The extent of my criminal tendancies is a few speeding tickets from my younger days.  I am an outstanding citizen in every regard and contribute to the well-being of my community and Canada at large.  However I own a couple of handguns because I have always taken soldiering seriously, so I will eventually become a criminal in Liberal eyes.  
Meanwhile the gangbangers will feel no effect, will continue to do their thing, and scoff at the law.  That my friends is fu*&ing bulls*&t.  
Not only did the Liberals lose any semblance of support I had for them and some in their party, they have just motivated me to work against their empowerment in any way that I can.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Dec 2005)

bubba said:
			
		

> So it begins,for now it's handguns next it will be shotguns and rifles



Yes Bubba, the first step to confiscation is REGISTRATION. We seen this in the early 1990s. I lost a semi auto FAMAS which was worth with acc's about $1,700 (it happily disappeared before the due date). For those blind and stupid enough to register their long arms ( this includes me), its too late. The clock ticks.

Despressingly yours,

Wes


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2005)

UberCree i don't think it's a matter of the liberals being afraid of going aftyer the gangs or whatever.

I think it's simply the liberals trying to get votes from the flock.   People who either don't give a shit or don't know any better smile and nod. The same way they smile and nod when the liberals get caught taking money out of their pockets and yet still chck off the liberal box on the ballots.


I know it's easy for lots of us to get painted as warmongers or gun nuts or rednecks - whatever. 
It's not the case. I'm for gun control. I don't think citizens should own assault rifles, submachineguns or .50 cal sniper rifles. This is simply a stupid decision which will hurt the good guys and do nothing at all to curb illegal activity among the bad guys. It's a waste of money and resources and it's a bandaid solution aimed at getting votes NOT cleaning up the street. Unfortinuately by the time people realise the stupidity of it they will already have casted their vote.


----------



## Kal (8 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And why Britian, which has outlawed firearms, had an unprecidented increase in violent crime, with criminals being the ones using the outlawed guns?



     And don't forget Australia...

   Edit - just saw the post Wesley made


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2005)

Hey UberCree,

I was wondering how long it was going to take you decide to not vote Liberal (I was watching you begin to waiver on the Conservative $1200 child care credit)  

Seriously, I have never donated money to a political party or written a letter to a Prime Minister.  This issue will make me do both.  I will be donating money to the Conservative Party of Canada to help fight this and I will write a letter to the PM explaining why his party is NOT getting my support because of such a stupid annoucement on his part.

For the record, while I do not own a handgun, I support any law-abidding citizen the right to own for the the same reason I support anyone's right to drive a motorcycle, watch porn, read any book of their choice, go sky-diving, etc- it doesn't hurt me.

Cheers


----------



## TCBF (8 Dec 2005)

" know it's easy for lots of us to get painted as warmongers or gun nuts or rednecks - whatever. 
It's not the case. I'm for gun control. I don't think citizens should own assault rifles, submachineguns or .50 cal sniper rifles."

Disagree.

I'm for PEOPLE control.  People are harder to hide and easier to find.  Just compose a list of people who CAN'T own guns - register them - and let everyone else own whatever they like until they step on their dicks and get a record, then put THEM on the list.

Right now it's back-asswards: we have the law abiding guns and people on the list.  That's the hard way and besides - it don't work.

Register arseholes - not guns!

Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Dec 2005)

"This is not the Canada we imagine,'' Martin said from the Jane and Finch area of Toronto. "It isn't the Canada we want for our families."

                  - How appropriate- I have thought the same about Jane and Finch for years, and I've never even been there.

 "Guns turn punks into killers," said Toronto Mayor David Miller. "We must choke off the supply of guns here in Canada." 

                 - law of supply and demand buddy - see above comments from your boss. Why don't we just choke the punks?

"The right to bear handguns is not a Canadian value,'' said Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant.

               - this from the man who is going to protect our daughters from Karla Homolka.

"I wasn't going to vote in this election. Now, I am. "
            - whiskey601


----------



## dutchie (8 Dec 2005)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> BTW Ceasar I hope you plan on cleaning that pistol after using it to stir soup.



Yup, before and after. A dirty weapon is a mortal sin in my books.

By the way, I have had a complete change of heart on ownership/possesion of firearms. I used to favor some controls on possesion, and a total ban on carrying outside of ranges, crown land, etc. Now, I am for what TCBF called 'people control'. 

Been convicted of a violent crime? Total ban on ownership/possesion of firearms for life. Get caught committing a crime while in possesion of a firearm? 25 year min in prison (and I don't mean commit a crime WITH a firearm. Simply possesing is enough for me). That means if you shoplift with a pistol in your pocket, you're gonzo.

Make it so unattractive to use firearms while committing crimes, that only law abiding citizens will for the most part own/possess them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2005)

> Disagree.
> I'm for PEOPLE control.   People are harder to hide and easier to find.   Just compose a list of people who CAN'T own guns - register them - and let everyone else own whatever they like until they step on their dicks and get a record, then put THEM on the list.



Touche.   My pro-gun control attutude stems from our governments inability to control criminals and punish them.
I thought I heard once that you can do more time in prison for not registering a firearm than you would for committing a crime WITH a firearm.   Maybe it was incorrect though.



> "I wasn't going to vote in this election. Now, I am. "



Over supper our of no where my wife, who was voting libreal much to my verbal abuse not to, started talking about how stupid that handgun ban would be and said she's voteing conservitive now.

Maybe the PM is sinking the boat on purpose.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Dec 2005)

Interesting debate, there are a lot of well thought out comments... and a few that weren't. 

I've read conflicting reports on whether the Liberals will compensate gun owners who have their handguns confiscated, but either way it's going to be a mess. On the one hand, gun owners are out of pocket for the value of their handguns. For most, I expect that's less than $1,000 so not a serious issue but it will sting. However I know a few people who have quite an extensive collection. For them, it's not only an investment, but an inheritance for their children. Losing that with the stroke of a Liberal pen is significant, akin to having a chunk of the average Joe's RRSP's or pension clawed back.

On the other hand, if the Liberals choose to compensate handgun owners, it'll be a huge expense. Not only will they have to pay fair market value for the handguns (or why bother at all) but each will have to have it's value independently assessed, compounding the cost. At the end of the day, the Liberals will have paid an exorbitant amount of our tax money to turn useful recreational items into scrap metal, while the criminals will be unaffected.

Worse, I believe this may actually increase handgun related mischief. As a registered handgun owner I know I have to be very cautions about safe storage, transport only to and from the range, etc. As pointed out, our society leaves people with the impression that handguns are "cool" and to be coveted, so a certain portion of the population will continue to seek out handguns, regardless of how they obtain one. Banning handguns will simply drive people underground to get them (as is already happening) meaning an increase in unregistered guns. What's the difference between a gun which has had it's serial number and ballistic characteristics registered vs. one which has not? Absolutely nothing, except the owner may feel a little less concerned about the manner in which it is stored and/or used in the latter case. An unregistered gun at a crime scene adds little evidence. A registered handgun, or even the bullets fired from one at a crime seen is (pun intended) a smoking gun leading straight back to the registered owner.

A ban will encourage misuse of handguns, instead of controlling it.

I wonder how many handguns will go missing? I certainly don't advocate it (why bother... there will be no place left to use it) but I suspect some will try, even if it's to keep it as a paperweight or inheritance for the next generation.

Edit: I wonder what the economic impact of a ban would be? Clearly gunsmiths, sporting goods stores and ranges will take a hit but I imagine the repercussions extend beyond the obvious. Having said that, handgun ownership is not exactly prolific, so the impact is likely to be overshadowed by the cost of implementing the ban.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Dec 2005)

Loss of enjoyment of property through criminalizing possession is hardly compensated for by fair market value.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Dec 2005)

Will they also compensate me for the gun case, locks, cleaning tools and ammo that will be obviated by the ban? Not likely.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2005)

They didn't compensate anyone when they outlawed so many other firearms the last time around, they won't do it now either. Gun owners, to the lieberals, are something to be scorned, demeaned, derided and vilified. Not treated as regular citizens. If your really lucky, they won't charge you the administartion fee for the disposal and deregistration.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

How about the original Gun Registry being hacked at least 3 times?

Heard on 680 am today that T.O. Police said 25% of all illegal guns have been stolen from law abiding citizens.
(Please correct me if you heard diffrently)

Wonder how the criminals know what you have and where?

Voting PC,

Ben


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Dec 2005)

Here's the details on it:

Canada Hand Gun Ban
December 08, 2005
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1143 

At a cost of $30 million a year over five years, the Canada Handgun Ban would include a federal Gunstoppers Program, amnesty efforts, a buy-back program. $15 million a year for re-licensing fee-waiver would also be provided.

In 2004, the homicide rate jumped 12 per cent. Since 2001 handguns have accounted for roughly two-thirds of firearms-related homicides â â€œ up from approximately one-half in the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990. 

Research also clearly indicates that guns, violence and gangs are correlated. Statistics Canada's 2004 Homicide report counted 81 victims killed last year as a direct result of their involvement in illegal activities such as drug trafficking and gang violence.

Under this proposal, federal legislation would be enacted enabling provinces and territories to legally prohibit all handguns. 

A federal fund of $30 million a year over 5 years would be created to support the legislation. This fund would provide for local amnesty programs and would enable collectors and current handgun owners to be compensated, at fair market value, for their collections. Legal owners and collectors of handguns would also be given the opportunity to permanently disable their guns in order to keep them, turn them into police, destroy, sell or export their guns to licensed owners in jurisdictions that are not enforcing the ban.

This fund would also create a national Gunstoppers Program, which would pay a reward for information leading to successfully getting an illegal handgun off the streets.

In addition, the fee for the re-licensing of long gun owners would be eliminated. Those who have recently renewed their licences would be reimbursed. Firearm holders would still be required to have a license and register their guns. 

Legitimate target shooters who meet strict requirements would be eligible for a narrow exemption to the ban, which would be established in partnership with the provinces and territories. Special measures would be enacted to ensure that shooting competitions can take place in Canada and that Canadian participants in major multi-disciplinary sporting competitions â â€œ such as the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games â â€œ can legally own their handgun. 

These initiatives would build on the previous announcements by the Minister of Justice of legislative amendments to the firearms provisions of the Criminal Code, which doubled mandatory minimum penalties for firearms smuggling, trafficking and the illegal possession of loaded handguns in public places. The legislative amendments also created two new offences: break and enter to steal a firearm, and robbery where a firearm has been stolen. As well, they provided reforms that would expand the use of prohibition orders, restrict parole and facilitate witness testimony. This legislation is an important element of the Liberal's gun and urban violence strategy. 

Furthermore, the new legislation would build on previous justice initiatives, such as Minister Cotler's proposed agreement with the Province of Ontario to create dedicated, integrated teams of federal and provincial officials to collaborate and coordinate efforts to prosecute gun crimes. 

A Liberal government's inclusive and balanced strategy would also include: 

a $50 million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund as a fourth pillar of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, as announced by the Prime Minister on November 9, 2005; 
support for community-based youth justice programs and partnerships to promote fair and effective approaches in response to youth in conflict with the law; and 
community investments through the Youth Employment Strategy and the Justice Department's on-going programming and partnerships to provide hope and opportunities for youth and communities at risk across the country. 
On October 27, Justice Minister Cotler also introduced reforms to conditional sentencing. Those reforms would prevent courts from using conditional sentences in cases of: serious personal injury offences as defined in the Criminal Code, such as all forms of sexual assault; terrorist activities; organized crime-related offences; and any other offence where the individual case is so serious that the need to condemn the act â â€œ and not use a conditional sentence â â€œ takes precedence over any other sentencing objective. 

Courts would be required to explain in writing any exceptional circumstances that lead them to believe it would be in the interests of justice to use a conditional sentence in such cases.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Under this proposal, federal legislation would be enacted enabling provinces and territories to legally prohibit all handguns.
> 
> A federal fund of $30 million a year over 5 years would be created to support the legislation. This fund would provide for local amnesty programs and would enable collectors and current handgun owners to be compensated, at fair market value, for their collections. Legal owners and collectors of handguns would also be given the opportunity to permanently disable their guns in order to keep them, turn them into police, destroy, sell or export their guns to licensed owners in jurisdictions that are not enforcing the ban.



Well, there we have it more liberal double speak at its best.   As much as the whole idea of a "national" hand gun ban abhors me as more appearing to do something when your not take on crime, this is even worse.   As I read it they are just enacting legislation that will allow each province to decide if they want to implement a ban.   Talk about passing the buck, but taking the credit.   I guess the population of Alberta is going to grow if all this goes through.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> In 2004, the homicide rate jumped 12 per cent. Since 2001 handguns have accounted for roughly two-thirds of firearms-related homicides â â€œ up from approximately one-half in the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990.
> 
> Research also clearly indicates that guns, violence and gangs are correlated. Statistics Canada's 2004 Homicide report counted 81 victims killed last year as a direct result of their involvement in illegal activities such as drug trafficking and gang violence.



Well, lets see what Statscan says.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal01.htm?sdi=homicides

-   Last year, 172 of the 622 homicides in Canada were shootings; a bit over 25%.   This means that the other 450 homicides (75%) were not gun related.   Stabbing was the biggest cause of death and beating was pretty close to shooting.

-   According to the Liberal release, roughly 114 of these firearms homicides should have been committed by a handgun (2/3).

-   According to the Liberal release, of these 114 handgun murders, 81 were gang/drug related (71%) [unless I'm reading the stat wrong and 81 of the 450 total homicides were drug/gang related] - it remains interesting to see what the other handgun murders were for.

So it seems to me that the logical conclusions are that:

- There is no gun epidemic; people still kill people, more often than not, without guns.

- For people who do decide to use a gun to kill, handguns are the weapon of choice.   However, a huge percentage of these handgun deaths are amongst criminal members who are unable to legally purchase or possess handguns.   They own them illegally - so how would banning something that is already illegal really affect handgun crime?

- The problem is not a proliferation of guns, but rather a proliferation of youth-gangs and a high-profit drug trade.   Maybe we should put the money there instead of making criminals out of Joe Blow who likes to take his pistol to the range?


----------



## silentbutdeadly (8 Dec 2005)

didn't the liberals already waste a ton of money on something like this and now they think we are so stupid that there going to waste another ton of money on this! I guess we are if we vote for them!


----------



## RangerRay (8 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands.



The same could be said about your car.   In fact more cars are probably stolen than hand guns and more people are probably killed or injured in incidents involving stolen autos than with stolen handguns.

Should we ban automobiles?


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2005)

So far, 82% of the responces to a Canada AM poll have been against:   http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

Even the letters to the CBC don't support it:  http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/letters_gunban.html


----------



## squealiox (8 Dec 2005)

as someone who's always been willing to put up with a certain amount of red tape to do neat things like own a gun or fly a plane, etc, i must say this latest news really pisses me off.
more to the point, were i inclined to disobey the law, i would be real reluctant right now about actually registering any other type of firearm now that we know for an _undeniable fact _ that our govt cannot be trusted not to turn around and just ban them.
 :rage:


----------



## TCBF (8 Dec 2005)

"What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings. Or shoot on a range to practice killing other human beings. I'm sorry, maybe it's fun to shoot a handgun on a range, but your personal enjoyment is superceded by the need to protect our society. Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands."

- I am sorry BKells, but your hoplophobic irrational fear of my private property is actually putting our society at risk by disarming it's citizens.  Remember, the police do not exist to protect YOU, they exist to protect society.  Firearms among the general population held for the purposes of hunting and sport shooting have a secondary effect of instilling doubt in the minds of bandits.  Take away the guns, home invasions go up.

Tell you what:  You and all of the other people who don't want civilians to own guns can all put "This is a gun free home" posters on your doors.

Deal?

No, I didn't think so.

Tom


----------



## MG34 (8 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Well, a friend of mine was just shot dead in Vancouver last weekend, so suffice it to say that I find myself warming to the idea of a handgun ban.   Couple of points:
> a) Yes, this is intended to win the Liberals the urban vote (not just in T.O. either), and it will work;
> b) Yes, handguns used in crimes are seldom registered and the laws already in place should have been enforced better, but imagine how much easier that enforcement would be if the police could know that every handgun they see is illegal;
> c) Handguns (unlike rifles or shotguns) are designed for portability and intended primarily to be used against people.   Very few people live in neighbourhoods dangerous enough to warrant owning a gun for protection and self-defence can be achieved through less lethal technology (mace, tasers, a shotgun full of rock salt, etc);
> d) Regarding the personal liberties infringement argument, the government can already seize my property if it's a kilo of cocaine or a switchblade.   Life in a liberal democracy involves compromises made in the interest of the public good; annoying for recreational cocaine users and handgun enthusiasts, but generally for the best.



You are an idiot if you believe that this legislation (if it actually ever passes) will prevent even 1 death or improve public safety. Since when are we living in a democracy?? A democracy means the government is accountable to the people....we do not have that in Canada,not for 12 years at least. Get off your misguided soapbox and engage your brain.


----------



## TCBF (8 Dec 2005)

"Even though the CCC says that you have the right to use reasonalbe force up to and including deadly force if you doi so you WILL be arrested, you WILL be incarcerated (if only briefly) and you and your employer will be forced to defend yourselves in a court of law.

And...even if your aquited of any criminal charges you can still be heald civilly liable for any damage to persons or property that you cause during the course of your duties."

- Okay, your first post said you "can't", now you say "You can, BUT:.."  

 Welll? 

 Fact is, in Canada, case law is well on the side of those who actually defended themselves to the full extent of the law, but not necessarily those who CLAIMED they were defending themselves.

It is urban myth disinformation like that that causes most of this country to not know their rights to start with.

Hamiltongs - I am sorry you lost your friend, but if I could promise you his killers would be executed and in exchange all of us sport shooters get to keep our pistols, would you agree?

Because you just know that the sp_rmhead who shot him would get a gun anyway.

England and Australia banned handguns, and their crime is going through the roof, yet jurisdictions in the states that have passed "Shall Issue"  CCA laws have a lower rate.

Fact is, if you remove the urban inner city ghettoes from the American side of the equasion, the US murder rate is on par with the Canadian one.

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Dec 2005)

The difference between the original trial balloon and the details is interesting.

A promise is only worth something if it is backed by credibility.   A Liberal campaign promise therefore is, to me, worthless - it exists only to influence the gullible and hopeful.   I suspect the initial flavour of today's release and the past statements of prominent party members regarding their opinion of firearm ownership in Canada more closely represent the true intentions of the LPC.

This prompts an interesting (to me) question.   If Canadians had to rise against an oppressive and dictatorial government, the weapons of choice would be long guns, not pistols.   In principle handgun ownership can be conceded without necessarily losing one's ability to defend one's freedom against an unjust state.   If a rifle/shotgun ban were proposed - either immediately or as a phased escalation - it would represent a decision point: acquiesce and accept living according to the whims of the rulers indefinitely, or revolt to regain one's essential freedom.   The question is this: would we be partly at fault for bringing that more difficult decision about if we didn't take every prior opportunity to send an unequivocal message to the political and elite classes - the message being that while we accept stringent guidelines (storage, transportation, etc) to encourage responsible behaviour, ownership is not negotiable?


----------



## Old Ranger (9 Dec 2005)

Slim,

Have we found the new party leader?


----------



## Slim (9 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Slim,
> 
> Have we found the new party leader?



Tom...Deffinetly Tom!

Mind you I think we'll need a speech writer as Tom tend to gett ot the point arther quickly.

A poliatician needs to know how to waffle with rhetoric for the full effect!


----------



## Old Ranger (9 Dec 2005)

I'll second that appointment!

All in favor....


----------



## Acorn (9 Dec 2005)

I'm a former firearms owner (handguns and long guns) who succumbed to the "rules" due to the paperwork nightmare of transporting firearms to and from different provinces and abroad (too many postings in the past 20 years). I don't own any any more.

However, this 'ban" is a pure vote-grab, in urban Canada, and especially (IMO) in Edmonton. TO will vote Liberal no matter what. Edmonton is "suffering" a "murder epidemic" and is the home of Landslide Annie, who PM would like to keep in cabinet. A high profile Liberal in Alberta mitigates the political cost of a Liberal washout through the rest of the province. They can say "not all those rednecks think the Liberals are bad."

I hope this one really backfires (in a firearm sense) on them. Some days I wish my wife wasn't so attached to Canada. Wes, how easy is it to immigrate to Oz?

Acorn


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings.



Then why is it a recognised Olympic Sport?

Acorn, things aint so rosey here for gun owners, just watch the Australian government copycat whats going on in Canada now.

The hoops one has to jump thru just to own a bolt action rifle here ( obtain a new state licence $85. and a 28 day wait, a proper purpose bulit gun safe $550, store the bolt separatly even when the rifle is in the safe, and ammo locked and secured separatly too. To think, all this for one rifle. Then to apply for a permit to acquire, and wait another 28 days. 

All the laws are designed to have owners submit to packing it all in becvause of red tape nightmares. Its outragous, at least for this prairie lad. Each state has its own regulations, and I now reside in Australia's Alberta (which I love), the state of Queensland, which is the best state of them all.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2005)

> What's the point in owning a handgun? It is useless for hunting and it's only purpose is to kill other human beings.



RTFO.

What don't you guys understand?
This ban will NOT effect criminals.
Only law abiding citizens will be effected by this.

HOW is this a good idea?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2005)

I'm getting the impression that the few on this thread that are in favour of this idea are only in favour of it because it came from the Liberal party.....if the Reform had announced it I'm sure they would be chiming right in with the rest of us.

At least I can admit that my party has some bad idea's too.....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I wonder if the University of Calgary will take me for next year, the Liberal/NDP-ness in this province is suffocating...at best.
> 
> Crime control, not gun control. Simple really.



You've never actually been to the U of C, have you.


----------



## nULL (9 Dec 2005)

Isn't this point of this not to prevent hardened criminals with ties to the black market from getting weapons? Isn't it to prevent young punks who think guns are fashionable to use their legally purchased/registered firearms on the rest of us in moments of bad judgement?


----------



## R0B (9 Dec 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Then why is it a recognised Olympic Sport?



The primary purpose of a handgun is indeed to cause harm to human beings, sporting and collecting are secondary purposes. Canada does not recognize the legitimacy of handgun possession for self-defense purposes. 

This is absolutely ridiculous, but I'm sure it'll buy the votes of enough idiots ready to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of safety.

Most of the firearms homicides that have been getting media attention in Toronto have involved illegal firearms and criminals â â€œ on both ends. Illegal firearms sell for thousands of dollars on the streets. Why would a law banning handguns prevent someone with thousands of dollars and no respect for the law from obtaining one if current laws haven't done a thing?

Florida's Castle Doctrine, now that's a tough approach to crime.

_If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns._


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This prompts an interesting (to me) question.   If Canadians had to rise against an oppressive and dictatorial government, the weapons of choice would be long guns, not pistols.   In principle handgun ownership can be conceded without necessarily losing one's ability to defend one's freedom against an unjust state.   If a rifle/shotgun ban were proposed - either immediately or as a phased escalation - it would represent a decision point: acquiesce and accept living according to the whims of the rulers indefinitely, or revolt to regain one's essential freedom.   The question is this: would we be partly at fault for bringing that more difficult decision about if we didn't take every prior opportunity to send an unequivocal message to the political and elite classes - the message being that while we accept stringent guidelines (storage, transportation, etc) to encourage responsible behaviour, ownership is not negotiable?



Interesting point - while I am reassured by the fact that we still have access to what really counts, the gradual erosion is disheartening.   When the time comes and the ban on long-guns is called, will the people have anything left in them to say enough is enough?



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> This is absolutely ridiculous, but I'm sure it'll buy the votes of enough idiots ready to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of safety.
> 
> Florida's Castle Doctrine, now that's a tough approach to crime.
> 
> _If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns._



Well, you may have your own thoughts on external threats, but at least you got it nailed down when it comes down to internal threats against the right of the individual.

I see this as you put it, a sacrifice of freedom.   Brad referred to this as a "stateist" move; sacrificing the liberty of the individual for the perceived "safety" of the group.   Simple logic points out that this safety would be an illusion with the measures the Liberals have proposed; so one must assume that a different motive is at work here.   Benjamin Franklin's statement comes to mind:

_Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both._

Assholes.


----------



## Abaddon (9 Dec 2005)

This is definitely a case of Liberal vote-grabbing. After all, Paul Martin's got to counter Steven Harper's child care credit. Just the thought of that fills me with dread. If the $1200/yr for every child under 6 does go through, stupid people across Canada will start to have children just for the sake of obtaining that money. Subsequently in about 14 - 18 years we can expect an epidemic of violence and crime that will dwarf anything we have ever experienced. One of the proposed explanations for the decrease in crime rates in the US over a certain period of time was due to the introduction of the birth control pill which reduced unwanted pregnancies, and thus problem children who were significantly more at risk of criminal behavior. 

There are two ways to look at the criminal handgun issue.   1.Murder by handgun is a problem   and  2.Murder by handgun is merely a symptom of another problem, namely drugs, gangs, dysfunctional family units, unemployment, and bling bling. 

I think after all the discussion, it is safe to say that a law prohibiting ownership of handguns will not solve problem #1. This law also does nothing to address problem #2 as well. Dealing with problem #2 will automatically take care of problem #1. 

The best and most effective solution would be to deal with problem #2, however this is a monumental task that is not to be lightly undertaken. Ex NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani suggested that in order to deal with the crime problem a number of initiatives should be undertaken. One of them is to collect crime statistics. But we know that will never fly in politically correct Toronto, home of Dudley Laws and suchlike ilk.  Another way to deal with the issue is to stem the tide of American media which saturates our society and impressionable young people with the glorification of crime, ignorance, conspicuous consumption etc. However, I am probably quite alone in that particular opinion. Free speech advocates would be the first to cry out about the injustice of censorship etc. I for one am very strongly in favor of Canadian content requirements in our media for the goal of maintaining and even developing and promoting a Canadian cultural identity distinct from that of our neighbors down south. Heritage Minister Sheila Copps apparently feels the same. It seems that the US is exporting its social problems to Canada as well as illegal firearms. It is enough that merely the perception of social problems exist up here regardless of whether they really do or not. For example, why exactly were there Rodney King riots on Yonge St in Toronto back in 1992? Is there systemic Canadian anti-black racism that may be at the root of responsibility? We'll never know because the Metropolitan Toronto Police force does not collect crime statistics based on race. 

There are a few other points I would like to make. 

If I remember correctly, the fine for importing illegal firearms into Canada is a mere $5000. This is hardly a deterrant, considering each weapon on the street sells for at least $500. 

The weapons that were turned in by legal gun-owners to the Toronto Police were illegally resold by a police officer. So basically that gun amnesty was effectively transferring ownership of weapons from law abiding citizens to criminals.  

In the end though, this is an election promise, and as such merely much sound and thunder signifying nothing.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/martin-gunreact051208.html

Apparently, many are seeing this proposal for the fraud that it is.

Harper's scored points with "5%" and "Choice-on-Child-Care" while Martin gets a lamer....


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Dec 2005)

Does not matter what bans,laws are put in place the Criminals will all way's be armed.
This is like a fence which just keeps honest people out but too the criminal it's a joke.
I know people with very fine hand gun collection's and they just target shoot and educate others in safe weapons handling and the fun of shooting.


----------



## MG34 (9 Dec 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm getting the impression that the few on this thread that are in favour of this idea are only in favour of it because it came from the Liberal party.....if the Reform had announced it I'm sure they would be chiming right in with the rest of us.
> 
> At least I can admit that my party has some bad idea's too.....



I am still flabberghasted that anyone in uniform could actually claim to be a supporter of the Lieberal party,I mean come on people WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Dec 2005)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I am still flabberghasted that anyone in uniform could actually claim to be a supporter of the Lieberal party,I mean come on people WAKE THE frig UP!!!!


What!
Out back of the Shack now!


----------



## Taylor187 (9 Dec 2005)

Bloody hell. If the crime syndicate known as the liberals win another minority this election I am going to take a serious look at getting american citizenship and moving south of the boarder. I can only put up with orginized crime for so long before I snap.

Lets just hope there is some epidemic across canada during the election period that only effects liberals.


----------



## UberCree (9 Dec 2005)

So as details of this ''plan'' emerge it seems there is really no substance to the policy.  The 'banning' would mean that collectors would not be allowed to keep their handguns, unless they become 'target shooters'.  Target shooters would be allowed to keep their handguns.  Everyone with a hardgun that I know is a target shooter (IPSC, IDPA, cowboy etc.).  Every range records use for this reason.  Provinces would also be able to opt out of the 'banning of collections'.  This does not make sense to me at all.  
In essence the PM wants to ban museum collections ???.


----------



## COBRA-6 (9 Dec 2005)

So what can we do? Most of the public are ignorant of gun laws, the facts surrounding this issue, and the so-called ban. If you want to make a difference send an email to your friends and family outlining the situation, ask them to forward it on, it might help or it might not, but at least we tried. The solution to ignorance is education. 

This is what I sent:


_Okay, I feel I must comment on the so-called Liberal handgun ban, because it makes me so angry I could vomit.

This is nothing more than a vote-grab and an attempt to shift political focus away from their party's coruption scandal, while at the same time making the Conservatives look evil. They hope it will suceed because the Canadian Sheeple don't know the facts, I hope it will blow up in their face. So prepare to be educated...

Fact - Handguns are already illegal to posess unless you have the required licenceses, which involves firearm safety training and police background checks. Handgun registration has been mandatory in Canada since 1934. 

Fact - Even for those that legally own handguns for sporting purposses, it is illegal to take them anywhere except: 
1) your home, where they must be locked in a safe 
2) a licenced firing range
3) in direct transit between the first two, locked in a secure case.
Any deviation to the above is illegal and will land you in jail.

Fact - the vast majority of handguns used in street crime are smuggled in from the U.S. This is possible because customs don't inspect most of the trucks and containers that enter Canada, why? Lack of funding from the Liberals. 

Fact - the only people this will affect are legal gun owners. Criminals use illegal firearms, you can't make illegal firearms more illegal, just like you can't make a preganant woman more pregnant. The liberals know this, but hope you don't. They think this ban will make them look tough on crime, instead of addressing the real problems - street gangs and cross-border smuggling. 

Fact - most of the dreaded "handgun murders" (71%) are gang/drug related. There is a gang problem in Toronto, not a handgun problem. What is needed is anti-gang legislation. 

Fact - of the 622 murders in Canada last year, only 172 were committed by firearms. In fact stabbing was the most popular method of murder. Source: StatsCan 

Don't let the Liberals get away with lies and untruths, forward this to your friends, educate yourselves, ask questions!!! _


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> The primary purpose of a handgun is indeed to cause harm to human beings, sporting and collecting are secondary purposes. Canada does not recognize the legitimacy of handgun possession for self-defense purposes.



ROB, WTF do you know? Ever owned one?  My first one was 28 yrs a go, and I still own 5. I see you are up to your old games, a leopard does not change its spots.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Dec 2005)

If Martin wins this election... I ... I just can't see why people would vote for him. It simply boggles the mind.

"Lets put a ban on all registered handguns."
"But Mr Martin, criminals dont register handguns.."
"Who cares! People are stupid! Weee!! ... By the way, I want this ban to cost as much money as possible.Tell them itll cost a million, but shoot for the billions."

STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID!


----------



## axeman (9 Dec 2005)

my only thought on this is that the handguns that are being used in the crimes are the illegal ones this is a moronic law . maybe if we started getting tough withthe ppl that break the law   we'd have less troubles.. maybe if you get busted in a violent act like that you get dropped off in the far north   with your hand gun a bullet or 2 and a map enjoy making your way back to civilization .. maybe if you survive you may apperciate it a little more .. self defence is a reason for a handgun. but because of the pantywaisted nancy's   we have in the goverment we cant do that now   but i can use my   12 gauge defender chopped down to 18.5 inches to discorage someone breaking in to my house that may have a weapon on them .. maybe that would discourage someone if i popped a round a few inches from them . what the f...k is that person doing in my house ?"i thought i was in mortal danger" if ppl followed the law we wouldnt have to have this crap happening . its not the legal owners that are doing the crimes   so why are they the ones going to be punished ...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Dec 2005)

I think we have to be clear: self defence is a lousy reason to own a handgun.

Not only is it a legal grey area, but if your handgun is properly stored it's not going to be much good "in the heat of the moment." Mine is literally stored behind 4 locks, with the firing pin and ammo locked in a separate location and the keys in yet another. I loathe having to gain access to my firearms because of the ordeal involved, which is the way it should be.

In my opinion, introducing a handgun to a home invasion situation is not going to improve the outcome for anyone. Besides, statistics show that knives are more effective and don't have to be locked away.


----------



## FastEddy (9 Dec 2005)

Don't think that a goodly number of   Liberals aren't sitting at home tearing our their hair out by the handfulls.

But don't forget that all four parties refuse to "Arm the Transit Police, Border and Immigration Officers and the Security Agencies and the Airport Police.".

If you think its bad now, wait till some fool decides to disarm our Police Departments like in the U.K..

Ban   Handguns and leave the Public at the complete mercy of the Hoodlums, boy they must have stayed up all night thinking that one out.


----------



## UberCree (9 Dec 2005)

The headliner should read "Martin announces handgun ban on all banned handguns."

"I have made a decision....   Crime is bad.   Guns are bad...   

Illegal handguns are in the hands of criminals and should be illegal.   Banned handguns should not be legal.   Therefore I will decisively ban illegal handguns."

This is in effect what he is proposing.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2005)

> statistics show that knives are more effective and don't have to be locked away.



I'll see your knife and raise you a stick Mike. ;D  Short and light enough to be handy, long enough to gain reach, heavy enough to leave an impression.


----------



## FastEddy (9 Dec 2005)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> I think we have to be clear: self defence is a lousy reason to own a handgun.
> 
> Not only is it a legal grey area, but if your handgun is properly stored it's not going to be much good "in the heat of the moment." Mine is literally stored behind 4 locks, with the firing pin and ammo locked in a separate location and the keys in yet another. I loathe having to gain access to my firearms because of the ordeal involved, which is the way it should be.
> 
> In my opinion, introducing a handgun to a home invasion situation is not going to improve the outcome for anyone. Besides, statistics show that knives are more effective and don't have to be locked away.




Well Mike, my only thought on that is, if some Perp. when or if, decides to pay me a unlawful visit, they are going to the Hospital minus their genitals and half their intestines from a 357 which I don,t keep behind 4 locks.

Knives, by the time if you are lucky, and able to take a defensive stand, you and your wife and kids are going to end with your throats slit. You don't have to leave it laying on the kitchen table, have it secured out sight and reach but available.


----------



## camochick (9 Dec 2005)

I have to agree with mike bobbit on this one. Bringing a gun out in the heat of the moment just doesnt seem like a good thing. Not only is there a chance you or your family can be hurt if the other person has a weapon, you could also be looking at jail time for killing or injuring someone. I think guns should be locked up. We hear all the time about a kid who was just playing with their parents gun and shot themselves or someone else. No matter how much people say they teach there kids not to play with guns, there is that chance that the curiosity will get the best of them.

As for this hand gun ban, I think it's silly. Guns are not to blame here, human stupidity is. Why not put more funding into policing our borders and ports and gang task forces in the cities? Why not make killing something you actually get some time in jail for? I think making it harder for these gangs to operate is better than outlawing handguns.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Dec 2005)

I alwyas though using firearms in self defence is kind of a ridiculous catch 22.... and the whole self defence laws as a whole but thats my opinion. 

Even if you do keep a weapon in the home, if you use it and manage to injure or kill someone trying to rob you, youll go to jail... so yeah, you can defend yourself, but youll go to jail for it.

Doesnt anyone else find tihs ridiculous?

Or in regard to the self defence laws themselves, a few years ago a kid I knew from school got attacked by another kid, but the kid on the defensive ended up seriously injuring the other guy, and then he got charged.

Where is the logic in this? You can not defend yourself, and get robbed/seriously injured/raped or otherwise, or you can defend yourself and serve jail time. I hope im never in a situation like this because either way its bad for everyone in involved.

I think if you can prove that the person was simply defending themselves and applied necessary force, nothing should happen to them at all. Not get a lesser jail sentence.... or is that the law now? Im very confused on this subject... any law majors out there?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2005)

> I have to agree with mike bobbit on this one. Bringing a gun out in the heat of the moment just doesnt seem like a good thing. Not only is there a chance you or your family can be hurt if the other person has a weapon, you could also be looking at jail time for killing or injuring someone.


Agreed.

Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Dec 2005)

>The primary purpose of a handgun is indeed to cause harm to human beings, sporting and collecting are secondary purposes.

In a different region of time and space, perhaps.  Here and now, the primary purposes of firearms not owned by the armed forces and police are: sporting and collecting.  If Canada adopts carry laws, we might see a swing to acquisition of handguns primarily for the purpose of causing harm to human beings when self-defence requires it.


----------



## Blue Max (9 Dec 2005)

In BC it is advisable to carry a serious handgun (.40, .357, or .44) when hiking in the woods.  Bears love meat with the hint of pepper in the air. Of course it is very difficult to obtain a carry permit for a sidearm in the backwoods unless you have something to do with DFO or forestry.


----------



## FastEddy (9 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you.




Maybe your not familiar with the trend today of killing the victims rather than leave witness's. 

So what your saying is you would rather standby and let your wife and daughters be raped and the possibility of all of you being murdered afterwards, because theres a chance you would be arrested and might receive jail time.

Well I guess, each to his own.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Dec 2005)

Everyone has to weigh the risk of accessibility vs. security for their handguns. For me, the probability that my kids will get into a poorly stored handgun is much higher than experiencing a home invasion. The effect of either is likely to be disastrous to me, so a quick risk analysis says storing handguns safely reduces more risk than having it available in the event of a home invasion.


----------



## BKells (9 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I am sorry BKells, but your hoplophobic irrational fear of my private property is actually putting our society at risk by disarming it's citizens.  Remember, the police do not exist to protect YOU, they exist to protect society.  Firearms among the general population held for the purposes of hunting and sport shooting have a secondary effect of instilling doubt in the minds of bandits.  Take away the guns, home invasions go up.



Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Dec 2005)

BKells, I beg to differ:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

and even more apropos:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Dec 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Well Mike, my only thought on that is, if some Perp. when or if, decides to pay me a unlawful visit, they are going to the Hospital minus their genitals and half their intestines from a 357 which I don,t keep behind 4 locks.



And when _three_ perps invade your home, take your 357 out of your hands, find it conveniently loaded, and then empty it into you, what exactly will you do then besides bleed a little bit before breathing your last?  Or God forbid your kids (or their friends) decide to play with daddy's gun...

Safe storage reasons are in place for a reason.  Get an alarm system and a gun safe.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?



From an earlier discussion:



> "Many social scientists say that murder happens for a structural reason: easy access to easy-to-use weapons.   Many people also blame firearms for emotional reasons....
> 
> *But weapons, it turns out, have less to do with murder than do the attitudes of people, and their system of justice, in accepting or rejecting murder.*   The National Academy of Sciences concluded, *"Available research does not demonstrate that greater gun availability is linked to greater numbers of violent events or injuries"*.   Rates of murder depend not on numbers of guns, but on who possesses them.   To reduce murder, the National Academy's Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behaviour recommended that "existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms" be enforced.
> 
> ...



The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?   The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.   And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles, right?

The reason, Mr Kells, for the American's problems with violence (you are right - they are topping the stats for Industrialized countries) is due to its immense socio-economic problems that are usually tied to race.  You would be hard pressed to find urban ghettos in Canada that are as poor and dangerous as those in some US inner-cities.  Switzerland, which is also armed to the teeth, is fairly wealthy and has no glaring social problems - they have fairly strict rules on acquisition and ownership, but possession is never challenged.  Poverty and race issues are what is driving America's problems, not guns or the Second Amendment - this is where the problem needs to be addressed; taking lawfully acquired firearms from a private citizen does nothing to do so.


----------



## Kal (9 Dec 2005)

BKells, if you're going to make an argument at least have the facts to back it up.   Crime rates have steadily increased in England and Australian since the bans on most firearms, and in many instances have higher crime rates than the U.S.  However, if one looks at States with many CCW permit holders are some of the safest.  Same goes with Switzerland, 6 million people, 2 million firearms, many automatic and it is among the safest places to live.  To see people openly carry firearms there is not unlikely, either.  

I don't believe calling you a loser for your beliefs is called for either.


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

"Agreed.Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you."

- Well, don't let me discourage you from not saving your own life.  I guess the gene pool really is self chlorinating.

This is my letter to the EJ:

 letters@thejournal.canwest.com  
Subject (no subject) 

          Show additional options 

Dear Sir,

This is "Hillbilly Logic": Peggy-Sue is asking Elly-May why
she has a black eye and a fat lip - again.  Elly-May says
that her boyfriend, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob, beats her daily. 
Peggy sue asks her why she doesn't leave him and get a new
boyfriend. Elly-May says "Well, any new boyfriend I get
might beat me too."
Thats Hillbilly Logic - that's Liberal voters.

And my letter to the ESun:


 mailbag@edmsun.com  
Subject Ltr to the Editor 

          Show additional options 

Sir,

Edmonton Police Association President Peter Ratcliff stated
"Every handgun that killed a person started out legally
somewhere."
Okay, and every prostitute started out as a virgin. And
every cop charged under the police act started out as a good
cop. We could go on. What exactly is his point?

Tom


----------



## clasper (9 Dec 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Well Mike, my only thought on that is, if some Perp. when or if, decides to pay me a unlawful visit, they are going to the Hospital minus their genitals and half their intestines from a 357 which I don,t keep behind 4 locks.


The part of the "handguns for defence" argument that I find most disturbing is this: unless you have been a policeman or been a member of a specific branch of the military, you have not received any training whatsoever in how to make a good decision in a stressful tactical environment.   In Canada (not necessarily in the US) if you legally own a handgun, you have presumably gone through enough training to prevent you from accidentally shooting yourself.   But you have not gone through any training on tactical scenarios, and you have not been forced to think through all of the different situations which may occur when someone enters your home uninvited.   An untrained and inexperienced individual in an extremely stressful environment is pretty much the definition of "loose cannon".   As an innocent bystander, I find that very scary (and I am speaking as someone who has had errant gunplay enter his home, while I was living in Louisiana- this is not a theoretical situation).

That being said, there are legitimate reasons to own handguns- collections and marksmanship most notably- I just don't perceive defense to be a good argument in most cases.   I'd be willing to support a ban on handguns if the statistics showed that it might help.   I wonder why the Liberals don't show the following statistics to show why their promise is a good idea?

# of registered handguns in Toronto
# of crimes committed in Toronto
# of crimes committed in Toronto with handguns
# of crimes committed in Toronto with registered handguns
# of crimes committed in Toronto with illegal handguns
# of accidental shootings with handguns in Toronto


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2005)

Everyone is talking about stats for this stats for that, 50 out of 75 murders were used with hanguns etc...
So?   Applying stats to something like this is just silly. Murder is murder is murder.   
Someone in my hometown used a trick to kill his girlfriend. 
A fellow a few years back used a crossbow (which i might add you can make at home) to kill his girlfriend.
People have turned airplanes into giant suicide bombs.
You can make pipe bombs at home with house hold supplies.

People are going to find ways to kill other people.   Drunk drivers once they've been caught enough times and have done enough damage get that blow job machine in their car. If they don't pass the test it doesnt start.
When will we stop looking at firearms as the bad guys? Regardless of a ban the criminals in our socieity will still get their hands on them.   I guess I sound like a broken record.


I gotta say I'm really dissipointed with some of the opinions of the soldiers I see.

I'm trying to see this from your point of view but I'm falling short.

Handguns are designed for killing therefore they are bad.
I can see someone who's led a sheltered life thinking this way. Someone who's exposure to life tops off at what their university or college teach tells them. Or what they hear on TV and the news but come on, your soldiers.
You've seen outside the little box we live in.
You've seen people who own a hand gun or a rifle because a few years back someone came into their home and killed half their family.   You've seen a guy up in the hills who owns a .22 cal pistol and uses it to kill partridge and grouse- his owly source of providing food for his family. You've met a guy who owns two revolvers which is the only thing he has left of his father.

_But thats overseas, we're in Canada, it's different_

No it's not.

Ever been to northern ontario? Ever see the guys up there in the woods trapping. Some use pistols for protection against bears (Stupid if you ask me but they do). Some people use them for hunting.
Some people love target practicing with pistols.   Some people like collecting them. Some people choose to use them for home protection.

I'm really surprised at some of your opinions and how you can honestly think that pistols are only used for killing. Thats about as dumb as when people get in our face as soldiers and say all we do is kill people.   

crazy


----------



## Pieman (9 Dec 2005)

I asked Santa for a handgun this Christmas...nothing too fancy though. If then ban does actually happen, then too late as I will already have one. I assume they aren't going to try and take away guns from current owners?


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

They don't keep statistics because detailed statistics do not support their cause.   As for the training part, I have shot with pistol shooters who have bought and paid for much better marksmanship training than any police officer receives.   As well, when you factor in the known police (and military) ND events, the safety training argument is moot as well.

That leaves the legal training.   The most important law is: "It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by eight" (carried by six if you are a civillian).   BUT: ....

Having said that, our system deals severely with spurious self defence arguments.   The media calling legitimate self defence "vigilante justice" and the lack of knowledge on this forumn and others regarding our rights and responsibilities in this matter illustrate the fact that perhaps we should - in school - teach a 'rights and responsibilities' course.   And teach it again as part of firearms courses.

"I asked Santa for a handgun this Christmas...nothing too fancy though. If then ban does actually happen, then too late as I will already have one. I assume they aren't going to try and take away guns from current owners?"

- Depends how you vote.

Tom


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Dec 2005)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I asked Santa for a handgun this Christmas...nothing too fancy though. If then ban does actually happen, then too late as I will already have one. I assume they aren't going to try and take away guns from current owners?



It's all conjecture at this point, but I've heard it said that there will be an amnesty period for handgun owners to turn in their now banned hardware.

Merry Christmas


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

It ain't banned yet.

Also, my five 'Banned' FN rifles (Prohibited, actually), are still safely stored.  The 500,000 plus short barrelled pistols are dstill in the hands of their owners.  I don't imagine adding 650,000 registered-as-Restricted handguns will lead to an immediate cordon and search of Jane and Finch.  Moose Jaw, maybe.

Of course, the police encourage ALL gun owners to turn in their guns, but then the cop who shows up says "Thank-you, ma'am, you've done a good deed today." then he sells them on www.CanadianGunNutz.com., for $6500.

No money in your pocket, though.

"The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."

Tom


----------



## clasper (9 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> As well, when you factor in the known police (and military) ND events, the safety training argument is moot as well.



I would like to think that per unit of time handling firearms, military and police have much fewer ND's than the civilian population.   I really have no idea if it's true, but I would like to think that.   The paranoia about ND's that was instilled in me during my basic training would certainly be useful in the civilian population...


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

It would be.   But, when you look at several thousand hunters in a given area with higher powered (762 vice 556) rifles as a gigantic live fire exercise with NO arcs, NO staff, NO comms Etc., you realize just how effective our hunter safety training is.   

The difference?   To the civillian hunter, he chose to spend $1400 on a tool - one which requires his constant attention and respect - in order to put healthy low fat meat on the table.   

Whereas, a lot of soldiers actually hate and fear guns.

I'll let you decide who is the best shot, and who you want beside you in a firefight.

Tom

Modified for spelling and grammar, which will come as no surprise. .etc. etc. ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."




"The dossier of private information is the badge of the totalitarian state." Sir Nichols (English Judge)

- Registration = government record of privately owned property, noted in a dossier.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Dec 2005)

>Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?

Is there a cause-effect between the right and the crime rates?  Explain why France, with it's reputation for fine wines, has a distressing history of violent revolution and flirtation with fascism and other forms of dictatorial rule.

There are predators and there are prey, and in between there are those of us with the moral common sense and strength to not be the first and the will and ability to not be the second.  All this frigging hand-wringing about how one should behave correctly when confronted by violent predators is laughable.  Ask yourself: during the commission of a criminal act, who should bear complete and unequivocal responsibility for any injuries or deaths sustained by criminals, victims, police, or bystanders?

Here's the truth about Canada: victims of crime are industrial accidents.  They're just the price the rest of us pay so we can entertain comfortable notions of our own good-heartedness.


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

"Here's the truth about Canada: victims of crime are industrial accidents.  They're just the price the rest of us pay so we can entertain comfortable notions of our own good-heartedness." -  Brad Sallows

- Clearly, this is my nonination for "Best Line of the Day".  I am - as we speak - bowing in respect.



Tom


----------



## North Star (9 Dec 2005)

This has been a long string, with some good arguments and some rhetoric. Well, here's my 2 cents. It's probably been said before, but what the hell.

This isn't about reducing crime at all. In fact, if that was the case, we'd be bombarded with statistics linking registered handguns with violent crime (which is a link that, in my opinion, doesn't exist to begin with). This is all about trying to consolidate urban ridings in Toronto, Vancouver, and to a lesser extend Montreal, where NDP and Bloc candidates are threatening some favoured Liberal candidates such as Tony Ianno, Deborah Coyne (the mother of PET's love child), Irwin Cotler, Jean Lapierre, and many more. By advocating a total handgun ban and pandering to less rational emotions, it is hoped that urban voters scared of gun violence will flock to the Liberal banner, offsetting losses in Quebec, Lower Mainland BC, and Southwestern Ontario. Perhaps the Earnescliife machine even thinks it can use this situation to its advantage in Edmonton and secure Anne McClellen's riding, allowing the Liberals the right to claim some Albertan representation.

From the NDP point of view, this is a disaster. Due to that party's reliance on some rural ridings, it's dangerous for them to try and advocate a handgun ban as it would alienate a great number of their voters. So, they've been marginalized on urban crime issues. The Conservatives, meanwhile, may gain slightly in Alberta from rage over this move, but Albertan votes won't necessarily translate into increased seats. An opportunity may exist for them to exploit this move in Southwestern Ontario and parts of rural BC, however, but I think the Liberal party apparatus has accepted risk on this front. 

What rational Canadians need to do now is not fall back on the rhetoric used by gun-lobby groups, which has largely been discredited (sometimes unfairly) in Toronto, but to ask for evidence that this course of action is the correct one. How many murders/aggravated assaults were committed   by registered handguns and their owners over the past few years? How many gun crimes can be traced to guns imported illegally? From my perspective, this information should be easy to find but sadly, I suspect no one will bother to try and find it out of fear of being branded a gun-loving maniac. As an INT guy, I can say that the logic used here doesn't point to a course of action chosen due to actual effectiveness, but mainly to win seats for this next parliament. 

My suspicions of the poor reasoning behind this move were confirmed when I opened the Globe and Mail (known by some Cons and Libs as the "Globe and Martin") and found little support for the move even there.

Gents, don't get mad and bluster. Get mad and embrass them with the flaws in their reasoning.


----------



## North Star (9 Dec 2005)

Just to add, I think the real losers aren't handgun collectors (although they will suffer) or other handgun enthusiasts, but the poor of the Jane Finch corridor. They're being sold a false hope by the Liberal Party, being told this will make their lives better when it really will leave them right where they are now - marginalized.


----------



## R0B (9 Dec 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> ROB, WTF do you know? Ever owned one?  My first one was 28 yrs a go, and I still own 5. I see you are up to your old games, a leopard does not change its spots.



Yes, I own handguns. Like you, I own five, but I only got my first one two years ago.

Handguns are designed to kill people and be easy to carry. That's why the police have them, and that's why wealthier criminals have them. The government has failed to recognize, however, that civilians are capable of legitimately owning handguns for self-defense. There's proof of this in the United States, take for example how many people have CCW permits, how seldom this system is abused, and how often it is used for good.



			
				BKells said:
			
		

> Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?



America's high murder rates are cultural. Even if you were to look back a century ago, before the UK, France and Canada tried banning and restricting firearms, the US still had a higher murder rate. If gun control reduced gun-crime, I wouldn't expect to see handgun related murders and assaults increase in the UK, Australia and Canada after tough restrictions came into place, while gun-crime has gone down in the US, where CCW permits are becoming increasingly more available and the AWB was allowed to sunset. As already mentioned, gun violence in the US, just as it is in Canada, is more or less confined to economically deprived areas.

Even if banning all crimes could lower the crime rate, I would never do. There are a lot of stupid things we could do to reduce crime that are completely unacceptable; people need to realize that undue deprivations of liberty are greater crimes than insolated but clearly horrible incidents of assault and murder.

If it's a low crime rate we want, we should probably follow the Soviet model. While the USSR never compiled official crime statistics, all indications are that crime was incredibly low. And hey, it's a socialist's paradise where everyone's equal because everybody is a poor state slave.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Dec 2005)

Quote from Mike Bobbitt,
_statistics show that knives are more effective and don't have to be locked away._   
 Quote from Kirkhill,
_I'll see your knife and raise you a stick Mike.     Short and light enough to be handy, long enough to gain reach, heavy enough to leave an impression._

Actually the 18 inch maglite beside the bed is much more comforting,.....cause then I get to turn it around, turn it on and watch the intruder bleed profusely.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Handguns are designed to kill people and be easy to carry. That's why the police have them, and that's why wealthier criminals have them.



Their easy of carriage and concealment doesn't neccesarily mean they are designed to kill people.  A stick or a knife is also easy to carry, conceal and kill people with, yet I'd hardly say that they are designed to kill others.

It is simply a tool.  You can't pigeonhole it into a "purpose" as people get different uses out of it.  Using it to harm/kill another person is one purpose - one that seems to gather alot of attention.  But I guarantee you more people have handguns in Canada for target/sport shooting or self-protection in the wild (ie: many prospectors up here pack large-caliber pistols, laws-be-damned).



> America's high murder rates are cultural. Even if you were to look back a century ago, before the UK, France and Canada tried banning and restricting firearms, the US still had a higher murder rate. If gun control reduced gun-crime, I wouldn't expect to see handgun related murders and assaults increase in the UK, Australia and Canada after tough restrictions came into place, while gun-crime has gone down in the US, where CCW permits are becoming increasingly more available and the AWB was allowed to sunset. As already mentioned, gun violence in the US, just as it is in Canada, is more or less confined to economically deprived areas.
> 
> Even if banning all crimes could lower the crime rate, I would never do. There are a lot of stupid things we could do to reduce crime that are completely unacceptable; people need to realize that undue deprivations of liberty are greater crimes than insolated but clearly horrible incidents of assault and murder.
> 
> If it's a low crime rate we want, we should probably follow the Soviet model. While the USSR never compiled official crime statistics, all indications are that crime was incredibly low. And hey, it's a socialist's paradise where everyone's equal because everybody is a poor state slave.



Sounds good to me.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2005)

Curious thing - don't know if anybody else has noticed this:

Handgun plan panned by:

Sun chain - no surprise
Sun letter writers - no surprise
National Post Editorial - a bit surprising these days
CBC letter writers - commented on by others as surprising
CBC querulous - a bit surprising indeed
Globe letter writers - surprise to me
Star Letter (1 of) - interesting - real surprise NO letters of support published
Globe Editorial

Fair smattering of self proclaimed Liberal and NDP gun-owners out there that seem to suddenly think the Tories may be worth a vote.

Can't think this was the intended reaction.

Have the Liberals stepped on their "foot" on this one?


----------



## Dare (9 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?


Why does no one challenge this nonsense? Everything per capita?? Why don't you just sign all your messages "MURIKA BAD *grunt*". 

Caveman attitudes.

America is #24 for murder rates per capita. according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

America is #8 for gun murders per capita. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

Certainly they have higher rates than other first world countries, yet they are also the home of several large and violent street gangs. 

If gun violence is culturally produced, then this action is solely to disempower responsible citizenry and distract from Liberal corruption. 

The less responsibility we allow ourselves, the more immature and child-like we are. The more child-like we are the more we will be treated like children. If you dislike what America stands for so much BKells, I would think you would want a stronger more responsible Canadian citizen to counter them. Your arguements are cyclical.


----------



## Blue Max (9 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Fair smattering of self proclaimed Liberal and NDP gun-owners out there that seem to suddenly think the Tories may be worth a vote.
> 
> Can't think this was the intended reaction.
> 
> Have the Liberals stepped on their "foot" on this one?



Let hope so. I don't think I could take another parliament run by a Liberal govt, and the absolute lousy job they have done in running this country and getting a thoughtfull govt agenda accomplished.


----------



## R0B (9 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Their easy of carriage and concealment doesn't neccesarily mean they are designed to kill people.  A stick or a knife is also easy to carry, conceal and kill people with, yet I'd hardly say that they are designed to kill others.
> 
> It is simply a tool.  You can't pigeonhole it into a "purpose" as people get different uses out of it.  Using it to harm/kill another person is one purpose - one that seems to gather alot of attention.  But I guarantee you more people have handguns in Canada for target/sport shooting or self-protection in the wild (ie: many prospectors up here pack large-caliber pistols, laws-be-damned).



Well, the first guns were certainly designed with warfare in mind, and modern handguns weren't designed for hunting. There may be a few models and calibers that were designed particularly for sporting, such as pretty much anything from Thompson/Center or Hammerli, but the handgun itself is designed specifically to harm people.
Most well known handguns were designed to compete for either a military or law enforcement contract, or for civilian self-defense purposes. Many popular calibers were either specifically designed to harm humans, or selected due to their ability to harm humans.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite. I strongly believe that self-defense is the greatest purpose a handgun can serve. I really wish Canada would make concealed carry permits available, at least to trustworthy individuals.

It's hard to tell what sort of effect this proposed ban will have on Paul Martin's election chances. Personally, I think it will benefit him. First, I doubt he'll lose many votes as a result, and second, I think it'll mobilize many of his supporters who would vote for him but wouldn't normally bother leaving their welfare apartment to vote.
Most of the people who have been outraged by his ridiculous proposal have probably already decided months ago that they would vote Conservative.

In any event, I think it's more important than ever now that he loses this upcoming election, and I would really be nice to see Stronach go, too.


----------



## Bomber (9 Dec 2005)

I would feel much safer going to Toronto if the liberals would just ban murder instead of handguns.  Then the crimanals would have something to think about eh, keep their guns, but you can;t murder people with them....I am really surprised they would touch anything with the word gun in the title, what with the success dividends bought by the gun registry still going strong.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Well, the first guns were certainly designed with warfare in mind, and modern handguns weren't designed for hunting. There may be a few models and calibers that were designed particularly for sporting, such as pretty much anything from Thompson/Center or Hammerli, but the handgun itself is designed specifically to harm people.
> Most well known handguns were designed to compete for either a military or law enforcement contract, or for civilian self-defense purposes. Many popular calibers were either specifically designed to harm humans, or selected due to their ability to harm humans.
> I'm not saying this is a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite. I strongly believe that self-defense is the greatest purpose a handgun can serve. I really wish Canada would make concealed carry permits available, at least to trustworthy individuals.



I'll give you that one - I just have trouble with the statement "meant to kill" as most people back that with an ideology that doesn't reflect the fact that lawful gunowners, for the most part, purchase firearms for reasons other then killing others (only 4% claim their firearm is for self-defence).

Canada could use a national effort to gain more respect for firearms.  Switzerland is heavily armed but crime is low.  Low crime comes from less socio-economic problems and the fact that a non "gun-free" state is not shooting itself up is that there is reasonable restrictions in place to monitor who has access to guns and a national culture which respects them for what they are instead of fearing them for what they aren't.



> and I would really be nice to see Stronach go, too.



No kidding.


----------



## axeman (10 Dec 2005)

;D      hand guns dont kill ppl  the bullets do   .. or i do 
man whats so hard to understand about that


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2005)

I like chris rocks idea.
Make bullets cost $5000. If someone gets shot you KNOW they deserved it.
No stray bullets either.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I like chris rocks idea.
> Make bullets cost $5000. If someone gets shot you KNOW they deserved it.
> No stray bullets either.



One more expensive thing for criminals to steal, that is all that that would mean...


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2005)

"Make bullets cost $5000."

- Never mind 10 mm Auto, have you priced .455 Colt lately?

Tom


----------



## Laps (10 Dec 2005)

Wow....  Amazing how things get after you started a thread on such a topic.  

In my first post on the subject, I tried to keep it to fact as much as possible, whitout putting too much emotions into it.  My point was mostly: I am a soldier, I shoot less than 50 rounds a year at work due to: budget cuts, lack of time, lack of training, etc...  I bought firearms of my own, not to build an armoury at my place, but so I can continue my training where the military left me.

Now, they propose to take my "training aid" away from me.  The same governement that caused the military to make weapon handling difficult due to constraints want to take away my pistols.  Pistols I purchased because I felt unprepared for military duties...

All of you guys (and girls) that replied in this thread, pointing out that this was a non-sense need to do more than keep these words on that forum.  As I previously mentionned, I am preparing a letter that I will send to my MP (actually, MPs: both where I enrolled and where I am currently serving), asking them to really consider the pros and cons of such a proposal, irregardless of the elections' outcome.  I might be a military member, supposed to support whoever is the government, but I am also a Canadian citizen, a tax payer that will be voting in the new year.  I ask you to also consider doing the same.  Spread the word around if you are even remotly opposed to such a proposition, because you know what?  If this becomes real and handguns are indeed banned, then it will be way too late to try to change things!

My $0.02 (and cry for support...)


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2005)

www.canadiangunnutz.com

Laps, it IS funny how the Tac Hel community always seems to provide us with new shooters. 

 ;D

Try the above link for all info, as well as the CSSF   www.cdnshootingsports.org

and the NFA   www.nfa.ca

Lots of letter writing going on, the most prolific and effective writer probably being a guy named Bruce N. Mills in Ontario.  He encourages people to use his points, and ends every sitrep on the Canadian Firearms Digest, 

teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1

with the guilt inspiring question "Have you written a letter today?"

I wrote TWO letters today (for once) - how about you guys?

Tom


----------



## Gunnerlove (10 Dec 2005)

Sigh, I am very disappointed by this announcement. I was in fact hoping that they would ban cars to prevent the accidents caused by stolen vehicles. 

I live on the west coast and until the RCMP gets their collective sh*t together and stops the "Angels" from bringing in guns and coke in by the container load , we are going to continue to have these problems. 

Oh right just a club, I forgot.


----------



## FastEddy (10 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And when _three_ perps invade your home, take your 357 out of your hands, find it conveniently loaded, and then empty it into you, what exactly will you do then besides bleed a little bit before breathing your last?   Or God forbid your kids (or their friends) decide to play with daddy's gun...
> 
> Safe storage reasons are in place for a reason.   Get an alarm system and a gun safe.




Well Micheal, maybe you should stick to things you are more familiar with. I have three fire arms strategically placed and built in around my residence. All with a hidden quick release access. There are no children residing at my residence and any visiting guests with their children could not possibly locate these weapons let alone release them.

As for three Perps disarming me, that is a possibility, but only after I seriously wounded one or more. And by the way, do you think they have invaded/burglarized my home to Chat and have a cup of tea. As for being a victim of my own weapon or theirs. that is a distinct possibility, but I'd rather go down fighting as it probally going to happen anyway if they are discovered. (dead victims/witnesses tell no tales).

I've found that dealing with this Scum that passiveness & pleading only encourages more rage and escalation of violence in the attackers, whereas armed resistance produces escape from injury and flight.

Yes I have a good alarm system, but my damn cat decides to play king of the jungle in the wee hours and occasionally trips a motion detector, much to the disdain of my neighbors.

Yes people can safely protect them selves, if they take the time and effort to do so. But they can't if the Government takes away what few tools they have. If the only solution is to turn your home into a armed camp, I don't know, but I feel much safer.

One sure way of reducing armed violent crimes, that any person found guilty of a crime using a dangerous weapon or in possession of such a weapon, would receive a  mandatory sentence of 40 years without chance of parole and such sentence could not be appealed. Sounds harsh so is shooting and killing a 19yr old student working partime at a 7/11. Or just attemping to.


----------



## larry Strong (10 Dec 2005)

How many of the "legally" owned handguns in Canada were;

a.  Stolen
b.  Used in a crime


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2005)

We don't know Larry, because they don't keep the stats.   

Does it matter?

Tom


----------



## FastEddy (10 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Agreed.Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you."
> 
> - Well, don't let me discourage you from not saving your own life.   I guess the gene pool really is self chlorinating.
> 
> ...


----------



## larry Strong (10 Dec 2005)

Well I don't know if it really matter's in the big scheme of things. But I was interested to see what the figures where as they are the crux of PM's reasoning. You would think someone would have the numbers


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (10 Dec 2005)

FastEddy,

Sounds like quite a setup you have there! I ask this not to stir the pot, but out of genuine interest... With that level of protection in your home, what do you do when you venture out to significantly more dangerous venues? (I.E. Out walking around town at night.) Do you limit your activities based on a fear of being victimized or bring the arsenal along for some fresh air? Or just accept the increased risk?

If you've accepted that your house is a dangerous place (in the event of a home invasion) it would follow that the outside world (where no "invasion" is required) would be much more risky.


----------



## Dirt Digger (10 Dec 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Actually the 18 inch maglite beside the bed is much more comforting,.....cause then I get to turn it around, turn it on and watch the intruder bleed profusely.



Ahh yes, D-cell justice.   ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Dec 2005)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> FastEddy,
> 
> Sounds like quite a setup you have there! I ask this not to stir the pot, but out of genuine interest... With that level of protection in your home, what do you do when you venture out to significantly more dangerous venues? (I.E. Out walking around town at night.) Do you limit your activities based on a fear of being victimized or bring the arsenal along for some fresh air? Or just accept the increased risk?
> 
> If you've accepted that your house is a dangerous place (in the event of a home invasion) it would follow that the outside world (where no "invasion" is required) would be much more risky.



How many people in Canada have actually been killed in a home-invasion of their own home by a total stranger?  Murder-suicide by an ex, a drunken fight, a whacko roommate, sure - but how many thugs have broken into somebody's home just to kill them?  I'm not going to live my life in fear of the next Charles Manson.  Defending one's property sounds all noble and all, but killing someone who broke in to look for a few bucks is murder as far as the law is concerned.  Not that I have much sympathy for housebreakers and thieves, but the guy who plugs him will have to live with it the rest of his life.  And, more importantly  maybe, his family.


----------



## Eland (10 Dec 2005)

I'm going to wade in with my two cents here (well, maybe 1.5 cents before GST/PST). Gun bans of the type proposed by the Liberals do not work. Look at the experience of other countries/jursidictions:

Great Britain: Private ownership of handguns banned; ownership of long guns severely proscribed. Result: Crime, particularly violent crime, has increased 50% since the ban took place.

Australia: Most types of long guns (other than bolt-action rifles and single-shot or double-barreled shotguns) prohibited. Handguns similarly prohibited. Result: Massive increase in violent and gun-related crime.

New Zealand: Introduced gun registration system in 1983. Abandoned due to severe cost overruns and overall ineffectiveness in meeting its goals. General gun laws are similar to those found in Australia and other Commonwealth countries.

New York State (USA): In New York City, handgun bans have been in place for several decades now. Result: No appreciable decrease in gun-related crime, particularly those committed with handguns.

Washington, DC (USA): Same experience as New York City.

There is no question that the proposed Liberal gun ban is just cheap electioneering designed to capture votes in the 905 and 416 area codes (aka the GTA), and thereby exploit Tory weakness in this area. The Liberals know that thanks to their ill-starred gun registry, Western Canada is a write-off. So is Quebec, for other reasons. That leaves Ontario, BC and Atlantic Canada as the remaining provinces where the Liberal party has good prospects. 

In short, besides pandering to a bunch of scared people in the GTA who can't think the issue through critically, all the Liberals are really doing is shoring up the redoubt.

As radio talk-show Charles Adler correctly points out, the Liberals are trying to bait the Tories into a response. They hope that response will paint the Tories as 'scary, pro-gun rednecks'. Wisely, the Tories haven't risen to take the bait.

I think something else is happening here, too. I think the Liberals have deliberately thrown a controversial policy out there in the public forum in an effort to keep voters' focus on the Liberal party, for better or worse.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

Well thank goodness someone has the common sense to tell the Liberals how stupid their plan is.  Ralph Klein for Prime Minister!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/10/hanguns-alberta051210.html



> Alberta will reject proposed handgun ban: Klein
> Last Updated Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:36:31 EST
> CBC News
> Alberta Premier Ralph Klein said his government will opt out of any plan to ban handguns.
> ...


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

Anyone  moving to alberta?


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Dec 2005)

God bless ya, Ralphie.  Don't EVER leave us


----------



## FastEddy (10 Dec 2005)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> FastEddy,
> 
> Sounds like quite a setup you have there! I ask this not to stir the pot, but out of genuine interest... With that level of protection in your home, what do you do when you venture out to significantly more dangerous venues? (I.E. Out walking around town at night.) Do you limit your activities based on a fear of being victimized or bring the arsenal along for some fresh air? Or just accept the increased risk?
> 
> If you've accepted that your house is a dangerous place (in the event of a home invasion) it would follow that the outside world (where no "invasion" is required) would be much more risky.




Not at all Mike, First of all, I do not consider my residence a dangerous place due to the possibility of a Home Invasion. From the point of view of a Criminal, most certainly, but that is by design and intent.

As for my normal public activities, they are conducted much like anyone else going about their lives. However, with one advantage, I can see sh?t coming a block away, due to thirty years on the streets. And like then, I am always prepared for it.  Unlike the general public, I am prepared to act on it.

With regard to Home Invasion vs Crime on the Street, bear this in mind, "Home invasions/burglaries are conducted in Stelath, Seclusion, Usually in Darkness, No Witnesses,  Without public assistance and Surprise. Street crimes are usually carried out in Lit Areas, Possible Public Assistance, Possible Witnesses and with Some Warning or Indication. So tell me in your opinion, which scenario are you most vulnerable.

I am also licensed to carry a (38.cal Snub Nosed Detective's Special) I've always preferred revolvers to pistols.

With regard to all the critics of Firearms and/or those that possess or carry them, If I were you, I'd be more concerned and worried about my Love ones and Children being killed by a Drunken Neighbor in his car than being shot by his Firearms.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Dec 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I am also licensed to carry a (38.cal Snub Nosed Detective's Special) I've always preferred revolvers to pistols.



I did not know the CF had 2in bbl models (even on the CF 2004 weapons catalogue posters), but just old Colt 4" .38 spl Police Positives, thats what they had (SIU etc) back in 91 anyways.

I know, I had two pointed at my face on 21 Apr 91, before I was rudly handcuffed and made a prisinor in my own home. That was in Regina, 15 Wg MPs, and another story all together. Thats because of an uneducated 15 Wg MOC 421, who thought one could not LEGALLY possess T series Inglis 9mms, CA AK's and FN C1A1 rifles. From that day on, my whole prospective on police changed forever. 

Even today, after all these years that wound is still close to the surface,and my respect for the Regina Police (competance wise anyways) is on a level of 2/10.

BTW, it took me 6 wks to get all my property back, some of it damaged, but at least teh MPs appologised for being led astray by the city police.

nuff said,

Wes


----------



## COBRA-6 (11 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Anyone   moving to alberta?



Thinking about it more and more...  ;D


----------



## TCBF (11 Dec 2005)

" Defending one's property sounds all noble and all, but killing someone who broke in to look for a few bucks is murder as far as the law is concerned."

- You don't kill someone in your house because they were looking for a few bucks.   You kill them when they leave you no choice and you "fear for your life" or the lives of your family.   That is the difference between self defence and murder.

As for the immediate effect of Mr. Martin's pledge, I was in P&D (Phil and Dianne) Enterprises today doing some ammo replenishment, and Dianne said it was a VERY busy day.   Talking with another worker in the store, I heard that the consensus in Edmonton is that 'Grandfathering" of pistols may result, so everyone and their (duly-liscenced) dog showed up to buy a handgun ,or two, or three, before it is too late.

I don't imagine that was QUITE the plan Wendy Kukier had.

Tom


----------



## FastEddy (11 Dec 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> I did not know the CF had 2in bbl models (even on the CF 2004 weapons catalogue posters), but just old Colt 4" .38 spl Police Positives, thats what they had (SIU etc) back in 91 anyways
> 
> Sorry Wes, Your right, but I was not not referring to CF or MP, but present in private life.
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## scm77 (11 Dec 2005)

*Grits Misfire on Guns*
_We were wrong on the rifle registry and PM Martin's handgun ban is no better: It could hurt him_

By *Sheila Copps*

OTTAWA -- The phone lines to the Prime Minister are burning up. The last thing rural MPs want to talk about during this election empaign is gun control. By throwing the handgun grenade into their midst, Martin may have just kissed rural Canada goodbye.

No doubt his handlers have done their math. There are more voters living in cities than in rural areas. By proposing to ban handguns, he hopes to solidify his support in the cities and further contrast his "progressive" values with those of the "right-wing, pro-gun Tories."

It is a risky move but one which Martin hopes will solidify his appeal to the Liberal/left/NDP/Buzz vote, especially in Ontario. It also repeats a history of Ottawa-made gun rules that underscore the growing divide between cities and the rest of the country.

Kim Campbell actually started gun control as we know it. As Brian Mulroney's justice minister, she introduced a firearms acquisition certificate for would-be gun purchasers, with provisions for training and medical evaluation.

Not to be outdone by a red Tory, the Liberals' Red Book in 1993 promised further changes to gun laws to promote "safe homes and safe streets." That promise paved the way for Grit justice minister Allan Rock to pass a new law requiring the registration of every single long firearm.

At the time, Rock said he would love to ban all handguns, but his natural caution and the caucus (of which I was then a member) convinced him to take a different path. His department studied the possibility of a total ban but recommended a limitation, instead, on all snub-nose guns with very short barrels, the so-called "Saturday night specials."

All hell broke loose. Turns out, the legislation would have banned some guns used in Olympic competition. When Susan Nattrass lobbied parliamentarians to legalize Olympic guns, she was joined by thousands of law-abiding citizens who shoot on a recreational basis.

Rural members were threatening to bolt our caucus. To smooth matters over, Rock asked a committee co-chaired by an urban member (the late Shaunessey Cohen) and a rural member (Kenora-Rainy River's Bob Nault) to come up with a compromise. A fractious consensus was reached which left no one happy but which permitted us to limp through the 1997 election with a reduced majority. One element of the compromise was a recommendation that the gun registry not be run by the department of justice. (Caucus predicted that an Ottawa-based agency would be the wrong place to speedily deliver a registration system that had to be seamless, if the government was ever going to win over the naysayers. We were right!)

The registry was a bureaucratic nightmare which was so over-budget and underperforming that it became a constant source of embarrassment. MPs and ministers who had guns (and there were many) complained they couldn't even get through on the toll-free line to register. Eventually the whole mess was turned over to the RCMP.

By reopening the issue, PM Paul Martin may end up hurting his cause.

Most Canadians, in principle, favour limitations on the use of guns. Most do not use them in their daily lives. But for those who do, legitimately, the gun registry exemplifies all that does not work in the ivory gun-free tower of the nation's capital.

It also serves to reinforce the impression that the current registry is not working. If it were so successful, why are unregistered arms of all types littering the streets of cities like Toronto? Confused Canadians want to know why Karla Homolka can walk free and law-abiding citizens are getting hit with even more bureaucracy.

This latest move has little to do with gun control results. It has a lot to do with widening the split between progressive Liberals and regressive Tories.

Unfortunately, the split goes beyond political parties. It serves to reinforce the view of rural Canadians that their voices, and their votes, don't really count. 

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2005/12/11/1347566.html


----------



## Infanteer (11 Dec 2005)

Wow, obviously that piece is about a split in the Liberal Party which saw Sheila Copps sent packing, but'll I'll take it....


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2005)

Good article


----------



## TCBF (11 Dec 2005)

If Sheila was standing in front of me now, I would say "Well done, Baby!"



Tom


----------



## TCBF (11 Dec 2005)

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." 

Heinrich Himmler 


(edit: At the request of a member, I have deleted a famous Allan Rock  quote (you know the one, from  "Taking Aim on Guns" Maclean's, April 25, 1994, page 12.) and added this one instead:

  "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz; March, 1933.  

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (11 Dec 2005)

Don't forget your sig line Tom:

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."  - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


----------



## redleafjumper (11 Dec 2005)

Sheila, you've come a long way, baby.  Though I dispute the concept of progressive liberals and regressive conservatives.


----------



## Slim (11 Dec 2005)

I can hardly believethat Sheila Copps actually wrote that!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Sheila, you've come a long way, baby.  Though I dispute the concept of progressive liberals and regressive conservatives.



You're thinking too literally.  Regressive in this sense, I think, means a reversion to older ways - ie no registration for firearms, but tougher laws regarding firearm crime.  Stuff like that.  Progressive as in challenging the status quo, regressive as in going back to ways that perceivably worked.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

"Hey Tom, he forgot the word 'criminals'


Cheers,

Wes"

- No, he didn't.  Criminals MUST remain armed.  The criminal is one of the pillars of the justice INDUSTRY.  With police science and technology getting better and better, a concurrent loosening and watering down of the law is needed to keep the criminals on the street and the lawyers and judges in SUVs and hookers.

If you have a more logical explanation, I would be willing to hear it.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Hey Tom, he forgot the word 'criminals'
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



I think the police benefit from that situation as well - lower crime = lower need for police = fewer police officers.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

No, it's "lower crime = less need for police = more seatbelt tickets per month"....


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I think the police benefit from that situation as well - lower crime = lower need for police = fewer police officers.



Police forces don't exactly work the same as private industry. Officers don't get laid off during a slow year.  


And this stupid stupid STUPID on Martin's part. It's a campaign "promise" that sounds appealing but will do diddly-squat to get guns off the streets.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Hey Tom, he forgot the word 'criminals'
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



Very similar to the industry we have in homeless people.  We built a 7 story palace of a Drop In centre a few years ago downtown that is actually bigger than many of the hotels in that end of the core; the homeless business is booming.  Last thing any of the people in the "industry" would want is to see homeless people get jobs and places to live...


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Very similar to the industry we have in homeless people.  We built a 7 story palace of a Drop In centre a few years ago downtown that is actually bigger than many of the hotels in that end of the core; the homeless business is booming.  Last thing any of the people in the "industry" would want is to see homeless people get jobs and places to live...



Ain't gonna happen because there will always be the homeless and needy. Same as criminals - it doesn't matter how advanced police technology becomes/how many cops you put on the street, there will always be more criminals. 

Really, I think these theories are little tinfoil hat-ish.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

If it wasn't for criminals and their illegally obtained guns, they wouldn't need a gun registry, and wouldn't need to ban handguns. Funny how innefective every 'anti-gun crime' legislation is...coincidence? Here's my formula for a Liberal anti-gun, er, 'get tough on crime' law:

Window dressing legislation + sensationalized 'increase' in gun-related crime + slack sentences + cushy jails (sorry Bruce) = no change in violent criminal activity. Let sit for one term, repeat until law-abiding citizens are completely disarmed, and only police and criminals have guns.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Ain't gonna happen because there will always be the homeless and needy. Same as criminals - it doesn't matter how advanced police technology becomes/how many cops you put on the street, there will always be more criminals.
> 
> Really, I think these theories are little tinfoil hat-ish.



I brought this up in another thread but it bears repeating here.   There was an organization in the States a few years back that dedicated itself to making life easier for homeless people.   Their bright idea on how to spend donations was to buy new shopping carts for homeless people to use.

Now, get this, they didn't invest in job training or helping homeless people develop skills, kick dependencies, or otherwise improve themselves.   They chose to give them new shopping carts - ensuring that they stayed dependent on said organization, which could continue raking in donations and paying themselves decent salaries, all the while pretending they had done some good.

See how it works yet?

The Liberal party appears to operate in the same manner on some issues.


----------



## Old Ranger (12 Dec 2005)

This I hate to bring up, and apologies if I missed it in the last 14 pages.

If handguns are banned, and only Police have handguns.   Were do you think someone who really wants one is going to get one?   I've had this discussion with Police Officers before; and, it always ends up with "your right" and to take more time on weapon retention practice.

Again I bring this up not as a smartass, but someone that does not want to see a Police Officer lose their weapon or get injured in the attempt.   I don't actually see this ban comming into practical play, but it is better to be prepared than scarred.

Ben


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I brought this up in another thread but it bears repeating here.  There was an organization in the States a few years back that dedicated itself to making life easier for homeless people.  Their bright idea on how to spend donations was to buy new shopping carts for homeless people to use.
> 
> Now, get this, they didn't invest in job training or helping homeless people develop skills, kick dependencies, or otherwise improve themselves.  They chose to give them new shopping carts - ensuring that they stayed dependent on said organization, which could continue raking in donations and paying themselves decent salaries, all the while pretending they had done some good.
> 
> See how it works yet?



No, not really. You're implying a mass conpiracy which implies a system that propogates the problems rather than solving them. And you're using one organization from the U.S. 

First off, show me a link or something to back up your example. Secondly, do you have any ideas on who/what is responsible for your conspiracy theory? Federal government? Provincial government? *ALL* levels of government? 

I agree that a lot of attempts at bettering social conditions end up a flop, but to assume that they are done to keep the status quo is far from proven and seems more a result of the IMPOSSIBILITY of curing all social woes. 

I think you give these organizations to much credit. I think they're just incompetant.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

Consipracy?  No one has implied anything of the kind.  You use the word incompetent.  That means they don't know how to do their jobs well.  We're talking about the exact same thing, then.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Consipracy?  No one has implied anything of the kind.  You use the word incompetent.  That means they don't know how to do their jobs well.  We're talking about the exact same thing, then.



No, there's a difference. 

Whereas I see people making decisions that are not based in current reality, from you I'm getting:



> Very similar to the industry we have in homeless people.  We built a 7 story palace of a Drop In centre a few years ago downtown that is actually bigger than many of the hotels in that end of the core; the homeless business is booming.  *Last thing any of the people in the "industry" would want is to see homeless people get jobs and places to live...*



..which to me implies a plan put in place to make an industry that doesn't produce a solution or results in order to keep jobs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2005)

I think some people fail to realise how many illegal guns there actually are floating around.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I think some people fail to realise how many illegal guns there actually are floating around.



Yup. That's problem #1 in Toronto. And solution #1 would be to find out where these illegal guns are coming from.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Yup. That's problem #1 in Toronto. And solution #1 would be to find out where these illegal guns are coming from.



I am no more worried about the illegal importation of handguns than I am the illegal importation of cocaine, heroin, etc. I'd rather just put the users (of illegal guns and drugs) in jail for a while.   

Guns are tools. They are inanimate objects that require manual manipulation to operate. When I hear of roving bands of pistols running around shooting people without a person attached to them, then I'll support banning them. Until then, let's concentrate on the thugs that are corrupting those poor, innocent handguns. 

If this mentality were present in Jack the Ripper's time, we'd all be using chopsticks.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I am no more worried about the illegal importation of handguns than I am the illegal importation of cocaine, heroin, etc. I'd rather just put the users (of illegal guns and drugs) in jail for a while.
> 
> Guns are tools. They are inanimate objects that require manual manipulation to operate. When I hear of roving bands of pistols running around shooting people without a person attached to them, then I'll support banning them. Until then, let's concentrate on the thugs that are corrupting those poor, innocent handguns.
> 
> If this mentality were present in Jack the Ripper's time, we'd all be using chopsticks.



Hmm...let's think about this for a second......you *aren't* concerned about illegal importation of guns, yet you fully recognize that they contribute to crime?

It's impossible to concentrate on the thugs without concentrating on the illegal guns, one way or another. 

If the guns are "illegal", then what is the problem with focusing on these "poor, innocent handguns"?

Whether you believe it or not, senseless killing is a LOT more difficult when such cowardly weapons are not so easily retained.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Hmm...let's think about this for a second......you *aren't* concerned about illegal importation of guns, yet you fully recognize that they contribute to crime?



Read his post again; he's saying that chasing "guns" is as futile effort to curb crime; if their is a demand for them, then there will always be a supply.   Look at how the US "War on Drugs" is working.



> It's impossible to concentrate on the thugs without concentrating on the illegal guns, one way or another.



Oh really, what about thugs without handguns?   Are their crimes no less important.   If you want to target "thugs", focus on "thuggery", not on how they're are doing it.



> Whether you believe it or not, senseless killing is a LOT more difficult when such cowardly weapons are not so easily retained.



Oh really?   How about the other 3/4 of homicides in Canada?  Look up Reena Virk or Jomar Lanot.   The fact is that, for most of recorded history, people have had an easy time killing eachother without have firearms technology widely available.

Quit chasing a red herring....


----------



## paracowboy (12 Dec 2005)

ah, yes, "Guns are evil."
Interesting thing, the belief that inanimate objects have sentience is referred to as animism and is only found amongst the more primitive societies.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Hmm...let's think about this for a second......you *aren't* concerned about illegal importation of guns, yet you fully recognize that they contribute to crime?



I didn't say that, for a refresher....



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> I am no more worried about the illegal importation of handguns than I am the illegal importation of cocaine, heroin, etc. I'd rather just put the users (of illegal guns and drugs) in jail for a while.



I said I am no MORE worried about illegal guns than I am illegal drugs. Handguns are illegal to every civilian, save some very, very restrictive exceptions. The reason we have an illegal gun issue is because of these restrictions in the first place. You cannot ban something that criminals NEED and not expect a blackmarket. In the end, it's the criminal, not his tools that are the problem.



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> It's impossible to concentrate on the thugs without concentrating on the illegal guns, one way or another.



Wrong. Put the customers in prison and the illegal gun dealers are out of business. Put the fear of a lengthy prison sentence in the minds of potential customers (say, 25 years for crime commtted while in possesion of an illegal firearm), and the gun dealers are out of business. Shall we ban pimped out hummers too?



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> If the guns are "illegal", then what is the problem with focusing on these "poor, innocent handguns"?



The guns are not illegal, their status is. Put that gun in the hands of an FAC (restricted) carrying canadian (properly stored of course), and voila! It's reformed! 





			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> Whether you believe it or not, senseless killing is a LOT more difficult when such cowardly weapons are not so easily retained.



Whether you like it or not, senseless killing has been around a lot longer than firearms. Or fire for that matter. Shall we ban knives? Clubs? Baseball? Golf? Cars? Rope? Hands?


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I didn't say that, for a refresher....
> 
> I said I am no MORE worried about illegal guns than I am illegal drugs. Handguns are illegal to every civilian, save some very, very restrictive exceptions. The reason we have an illegal gun issue is because of these restrictions in the first place. You cannot ban something that criminals NEED and not expect a blackmarket. In the end, it's the criminal, not his tools that are the problem.



Understood. But what is the alternative? Loosen the law on handguns and you have the same problems. At least allow law enforcement the ability to confiscate these illegal weapons, or else you'll have a situations like you do south of the border.  



> Wrong. Put the customers in prison and the illegal gun dealers are out of business. Put the fear of a lengthy prison sentence in the minds of potential customers (say, 25 years for crime commtted while in possesion of an illegal firearm), and the gun dealers are out of business. Shall we ban pimped out hummers too?



No, completely agree with that. But that doesn't mean I don't think we should go after the sources of the illegal handguns in the first place. 



> The guns are not illegal, their status is. Put that gun in the hands of an FAC (restricted) carrying canadian (properly stored of course), and voila! It's reformed!
> Whether you like it or not, senseless killing has been around a lot longer than firearms. Or fire for that matter. Shall we ban knives? Clubs? Baseball? Golf? Cars? Rope? Hands?



I say again: I am *not* for banning of handguns. I never wanted handguns to be restricted from law-abiding owners. That NEVER was my opinion (if anyone cared to look back at my posts). 

BUT, senseless killing is *far* easier when guns are involved. ILLEGAL handguns should be stopped at the source (AS WELL AS throwing the book at individuals).


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Read his post again; he's saying that chasing "guns" is as futile effort to curb crime; if their is a demand for them, then there will always be a supply.  Look at how the US "War on Drugs" is working.
> 
> Oh really, what about thugs without handguns?  Are their crimes no less important.  If you want to target "thugs", focus on "thuggery", not on how they're are doing it.
> 
> ...



It's not a red herring when you live in the city. 
Do I think that an inanimate object such as a gun makes an otherwise law-abiding person commit a crime? Of course not. Do I think that it makes it easier to commit murder? Yes, I do. 

A thug is a thug is a thug, But a gun can make murder a heckuva lot less personal and a lot easier. Not to mention there are a lot more innocent bystanders in regards to shootings. Louise Russo sure wouldn't have been shot and paralyzed if  guns weren't used in a gang-related scuffle in Scarborough.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Understood. But what is the alternative? Make handguns MORE legal, and therefore the problem goes away in this case?


Forget handguns for a minute, and think about the much bigger problem of our impotent 'justice' system. Prison sentences that seem woefully inadequate as a deterrent, a correctional system, that CMIIW, does not even have 'deterrent' as a goal, but rather 'rehabilitation and 'cost-effectiveness' (read:as little jail time as possible). And our police forces that are undermanned, underfunded, and in many cases underarmed. 

Now, as far as guns go: make it so unattractive to be involved in guns and criminal activity at the same time that there is a real deterrent to it. Like I said earlier, make any criminal code offence committed while in possession of a firearm a min of 25 years in prison. I don't care if it's a Mac 10 or a vintage lever action winchester.   No need to prove that he threatened the clerk with the gun. Just possesing it is enough. Bye-bye stupid. Anyone caught smuggling, selling or buying either illegal guns or buying legal guns through illegal means gets a hefty prison term too. 

Get tough on the criminal, and leave the law-abiding Canadian who likes to target shoot, carry some protection in the woods, or stir his soup alone ( ). 

For some comparison:

Banning handguns to stop murder is like banning penises to stop rape.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Forget handguns for a minute, and think about the much bigger problem of our impotent 'justice' system. Prison sentences that seem woefully inadequate as a deterrent, a correctional system, that CMIIW, does not even have 'deterrent' as a goal, but rather 'rehabilitation and 'cost-effectiveness' (read:as little jail time as possible). And our police forces that are undermanned, underfunded, and in many cases underarmed.
> 
> Now, as far as guns go: make it so unattractive to be involved in guns and criminal activity at the same time that there is a real deterrent to it. Like I said earlier, make any criminal code offence committed while in possession of a firearm a min of 25 years in prison. I don't care if it's a Mac 10 or a vintage lever action winchester.  No need to prove that he threatened the clerk with the gun. Just possesing it is enough. Bye-bye stupid. Anyone caught smuggling, selling or buying either illegal guns or buying legal guns through illegal means gets a hefty prison term too.
> 
> ...



And I repeat: I never supported the ban on handguns. 

I agree. I think we should up the minimum sentences. Enough with the conditional and suspended sentences. Enough with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (and so on) chances.


----------



## R0B (12 Dec 2005)

1. Illegal handguns in Canada are rare. 
Very few criminals have them, and they tend to cost in excess of $2000 each. The only reason you hear about them all the time is because the media has sensationalized them?
A year or two ago there were two or three shark attacks off the coast of Florida. Suddenly, every shark attack in the US was reported on CNN, as if there were some shark attack epidemic. As it turns out, there was no significant change in the number of shark attacks. Does anyone remember this?
Anyways, it's the same thing with illegal guns. A few dozen people get shot in a city of more than 2,500,000 and suddenly we have a "major crisis." Come on. More people die in car accidents, so why not ban "assault" sedans?

2. Longer sentences don't work.
Punishments should fit the crime. Is it really worth adding a decade to someone's sentence because they used a gun? People who walk around with an illegal handgun, ready to commit premeditated murder don't care if you're going to change their life sentence to life plus 25. In fact, increasing the penalties associated with such crimes may only make criminals guilty of such a crime more likely to fight to the death rather than surrender, in the event of a showdown with the police.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> 1. Illegal handguns in Canada are rare.
> Very few criminals have them, and they tend to cost in excess of $2000 each. The only reason you hear about them all the time is because the media has sensationalized them?
> A year or two ago there were two or three shark attacks off the coast of Florida. Suddenly, every shark attack in the US was reported on CNN, as if there were some shark attack epidemic. As it turns out, there was no significant change in the number of shark attacks. Does anyone remember this?
> Anyways, it's the same thing with illegal guns. A few dozen people get shot in a city of more than 2,500,000 and suddenly we have a "major crisis." Come on. More people die in car accidents, so why not ban "assault" sedans?



Agree 100%.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> 2. People who walk around with an illegal handgun, ready to commit premeditated murder don't care if you're going to change their life sentence to life plus 25. In fact, increasing the penalties associated with such crimes may only make criminals guilty of such a crime more likely to fight to the death rather than surrender, in the event of a showdown with the police.



The fact is that if someone wants to kill another person, there is very little we can do about it. That person, well motivated, will use whatever he has to to kill him. That's not my point. My point is this: Get that guy when he commits an armed robbery, before he progresses to murder, and put him away. Make it so unattractive to commit crime whiole armed with guns that criminals will use other means. I'll bet the murder rate goes down, not because we've scared them straight, but rather that we threw them in prison for armed robbery for 25 years. It'll also even the playing field in armed robbberies. Hard-working entreprenuers who are robbed in their corner-store at knife point might start fighting back with clubs, spray, etc where they wouldn't have with a gun. 

Guns belong to hunters, cops, soldiers, target-shooters, and otherwise law-abiding Canadians. This rabble has given them a bad rap.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> 1. Illegal handguns in Canada are rare.
> Very few criminals have them, and they tend to cost in excess of $2000 each. The only reason you hear about them all the time is because the media has sensationalized them?
> A year or two ago there were two or three shark attacks off the coast of Florida. Suddenly, every shark attack in the US was reported on CNN, as if there were some shark attack epidemic. As it turns out, there was no significant change in the number of shark attacks. Does anyone remember this?
> Anyways, it's the same thing with illegal guns. A few dozen people get shot in a city of more than 2,500,000 and suddenly we have a "major crisis." Come on. More people die in car accidents, so why not ban "assault" sedans?



Your out to lunch on this, but I'll play along. So your saying every gun a Gang Banger has is lawfully registered to that person? I thought not. The minute it leaves the registered owner, with out his permission, it becomes illegal. I think you may have meant smuggled, and there are thousands of those in Canada. Ask the cops or Customs, they'll verify it. We get them here at the border by the bucket fulls, and that's just what our overworked Customs guys catch.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

You know, whether the Liberals like it or not Cnaada Customs is eventually going to have to be armed.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Understood. But what is the alternative? Loosen the law on handguns and you have the same problems. At least allow law enforcement the ability to confiscate these illegal weapons, or else you'll have a situations like you do south of the border.



Same problems?   Situations like you do south of the border?   What are you talking about.   Catch up with the thread, here is a good place to start:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> From an earlier discussion:





> BUT, senseless killing is *far* easier when guns are involved.



Really?    What is "senseless" killing?   How does a gun make it *far* easier?   Is senseless based on a matter of distance?   Handguns aren't that effective from anything but a very close range and the human body is quite fragile.   I would think that it would be *far* easier for me to acquire a knife for a couple of bucks at a hardware store and stick it between somebodies ribs to kill them.

Are you just making stuff up for the sake of posting here?



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> It's not a red herring when you live in the city.
> Do I think that an inanimate object such as a gun makes an otherwise law-abiding person commit a crime? Of course not. Do I think that it makes it easier to commit murder? Yes, I do.



Don't make an appeal to authority to cover up for your shitty argument.   I've lived in right in the heart of Vancouver and have seen a guy gunned down right below my window, so I don't need a lecture on how big-city folks know everything.   As I said above, if guns make homicide easier, prove it; logically, your statement doesn't hold any water.   The crimes we are dealing with are not "hits" by cold-killers with assault rifles, they are outbreaks of violence that occur between groups of young men at point-blank range.   This is all covered in Ghiglieri's research.



> But a gun can make murder a heckuva lot less personal and a lot easier. Not to mention there are a lot more innocent bystanders in regards to shootings. Louise Russo sure wouldn't have been shot and paralyzed if   guns weren't used in a gang-related scuffle in Scarborough.



You're sensationalizing and are guilty of the points that R0B just pointed out.   If you look up the statistics on stabbings, beatings, and petty robbery, you'll find a greater number of crimes and more victims and innocent bystanders.   Let it sink in - it is not how these acts are being committed, rather it is who is doing them and for what reasons.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Really?   What is "senseless" killing?  How does a gun make it *far* easier?  Is senseless based on a matter of distance?  Handguns aren't that effective from anything but a very close range and the human
> body is quite fragile.  I would think that it would be *far* easier for me to acquire a knife for a couple of bucks at a hardware store and stick it between somebodies ribs to kill them.
> 
> Are you just making stuff up for the sake of posting here?



Are you freakin kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance??

Let's take for example a shooting that happened in Mississauga as Square One Shopping Mall, where the driver of an SUV was gunned down while parked outside the front entrance. Now, please explain to me how easily that could have happened WITHOUT the firearm in the same scenario. 

Maybe it's different in Vancouver, but a LOT of hits out here have been specifically targeted. 



> Don't make an appeal to authority to cover up for your shitty argument.  I've lived in right in the heart of Vancouver and have seen a guy gunned down right below my window, so I don't need a lecture on how big-city folks know everything.  As I said above, if guns make homicide easier, prove it; logically, your statement doesn't hold any water.  The crimes we are dealing with are not "hits" by cold-killers with assault rifles, they are outbreaks of violence that occur between groups of young men at point-blank range.  This is all covered in Ghiglieri's research.
> 
> You sensationalizing and are guilty of the points that R0B just pointed out.  If you look up the statistics on stabbings, beatings, and petty robbery, you'll find a greater number of crimes and more victims and innocent bystanders.  Let it sink in - it is not how these acts are being committed, rather it is who is doing them and for what reasons.



You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it has *nothing* to do with handguns, and has everything to do with......what? I dunno. 

I know that it has a multitide of factors. You're trying to pidgeonhole me into an extreme to further your opinion, but it's not going to work. 

You're using me as a scapegoat to show off your quotes and research in regards to this topic. 

I said that illegal guns made it easier for gangs to commit murder and harm innocent bystanders, and that is what I stand by. That has nothing to do with my opinions of those individuals who are themselves committing these offences.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Are you just making stuff up for the sake of posting here?
> 
> 
> Are you freakin kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance??



I teach people to shoot handguns...Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance




> I said that illegal guns made it easier for gangs to commit murder and harm innocent bystanders, and that is what I stand by.



Sorry..I don't buy that. How many times have we heard about people being hurt with knives, bottle and whatever else people can get their hands on!


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I teach people to shoot handguns...Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance
> 
> 
> Sorry..I don't buy that. How many times have we heard about people being hurt with knives, bottle and whatever else people can get their hands on!



Oh dear lord!

Of course they get hurt by knives, bottles, and etc!

But try working in a city housing complex where youths shoot their new gun through the stairwell in order to impress their girlfriend....

...imagine young males shooting their new handgun into the bushes on the first floor of their bldg. in order to test it....

...imagine shooting and killing another tenant for a reason you don't understand and being in the middle of it...

.. imagine shooting and paralyzing an innocent whilst trying to kill another... 

(all *true* situations purely through experience)

Try working in this situation and then trying to make sense of it.  Yes, thank GOD these people are a crappy shot, but does that mean we shouldn't try and take the guns out of THEIR HANDS??

Do we not want to keep the guns in the hand so of the LAWFUL??

For the LAST TIME, I'm not trying to say that guns are THE ONE AND ONLY ENEMY, but they ARE worth trying to stop, in terms of illegal handguns.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

Of course we should...But now you're doing the same things that the Libs do when they say take the legal guns away and the illigal ones will soon follow.

That is a load of crap! All the Libs are doing is law-abiding citizens guns away. Cause if they were'nt law abiding the law wouldn't know about their guns in the first place.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Are you freaking kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance??



I'm trained to use a handgun as part of my profession.   Trust me, they are not that effective unless someone is really good with them (which most criminals are not)



> Let's take for example a shooting that happened in Mississauga as Square One Shopping Mall, where the driver of an SUV was gunned down while parked outside the front entrance. Now, please explain to me how easily that could have happened WITHOUT the firearm in the same scenario.



Well, if you want to pull anecdotes out (I just ripped this one off google):

http://www.alternatives.com/crime/vvannedhHTML|_

It is just as easy to pull the guy out, stab him 54 times, and throw him into a ditch.



> You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it has *nothing* to do with handguns, and has everything to do with......what? I dunno.
> 
> I know that it has a multitide of factors. You're trying to ppigeonholeme into an extreme to further your opinion, but it's not going to work.
> 
> You're using me as a scapegoat to show off your quotes and research in regards to this topic.



Again, if you read the thread, you'll see that I specifically say that this is a gang problem with socio-economic ties.   As I pointed out, Ghiglieri's research into male violence shows why young, urban males in certain circumstances tend to have homicide rates approaching those of the most violent societies on the planet.   Targeting guns is really irrelevant to addressing this problem, as the root causes can just as easily allow these individuals to pick up a knife, bat, or simply use their fists.   Gang-members kill eachother for reasons; I can assure you they do not say "Gee, look at this gun I've got; maybe I should go kill someone".



> I said that illegal guns made it easier for gangs to commit murder and harm innocent bystanders, and that is what I stand by.



...and I've stated that this is simply a poor argument.   Unless you're going to give me anything else besides your SWAG, then quit wasting bandwidth.


----------



## 48Highlander (12 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I teach people to shoot handguns...Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance



 ???

I don't know man...I don't have your experience with teaching people to shoot handguns, but the last time I instructed on a DP2A course, every individual was able to effectively engage a figure 11 from up to 25 meters.  Granted most of them only got half the rounds on target at that range, but one round out of two still does the job, and at 12 meters almost every round was on target.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm trained to use a handgun as part of my profession.  Trust me, they are not that effective unless someone is really good with them (which most criminals are not)
> 
> Well, if you want to pull anecdotes out (I just ripped this one off google):
> 
> ...



You're ignoring every single mention I've made where I've said "guns are making it easier, but these guys are still bad". 

Nor have I *ever* said that these guys would commit these crimes only if they had a gun.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I don't know man...I don't have your experience with teaching people to shoot handguns, but the last time I instructed on a DP2A course, every individual was able to effectively engage a figure 11 from up to 25 meters.   Granted most of them only got half the rounds on target at that range, but one round out of two still does the job, and at 12 meters almost every round was on target.



Yes, thanks very much for your well-informed point. Pardon me if I have trouble believing that as most reservists I know can't shoot properly with a rifle that has optical sights, never mind a Browning Hi-Power pistol.

Also, the fig 11 target is a rather large target and although not easy to score on quite easy to hit.

I teach bank and security guards, as well as select members of the CF how to use handguns and shotguns week in and week out.

How often do you run your DPS-whatever course?

I have also shot CFSAC and been the top first year comptetitor the year that I competed.

So don't start boy.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I don't know man...I don't have your experience with teaching people to shoot handguns, but the last time I instructed on a DP2A course, every individual was able to effectively engage a figure 11 from up to 25 meters.   Granted most of them only got half the rounds on target at that range, but one round out of two still does the job, and at 12 meters almost every round was on target.



That's close range as far as I'm concerned.   You can see the whites of their eyes.   I think the definition of "lethal range" with a knife was desribed on this thread and was somewhere within those distances.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and I've stated that this is simply a poor argument.  Unless you're going to give me anything else besides your SWAG, then quit wasting bandwidth.



What is your qualification then? How is it a poor argument? 

I'm just trying to figure out who get to decide what qualifies as a "good" or "bad" argument.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it has *nothing* to do with handguns, and has everything to do with......what? I dunno.



Can't you just accept that some people are just plain bad, and no matter how many tools you give them or take away, that they will not likely stop being bad? 

There are a number of reasons WHY people murder:

psychopathy, paranoid delusions, a psychotic break, sociopathy, a slow degredation of one's consciounce, etc. No where, in any psychological study, will you find access to firearms as a REASON to kill. It is a means, not a reason. Banning the means, without addressing the reason, is misdirected and actually counter-productive as it delays resolution.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's close range as far as I'm concerned.   You can see the whites of their eyes.   I think the definition of "lethal range" with a knife was desribed on this thread and was somewhere within those distances.



25-30 feet away is the safe distance from someone with a knife.   So thats approx 10-11 metres.


----------



## 48Highlander (12 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Yes, thanks very much for your well-informed point. Pardon me if I have trouble believing that as most reservists I know can't shoot properly with a rifle that has optical sights, never mind a Browning Hi-Power pistol.
> 
> Also, the fig 11 target is a rather large target and although not easy to score on quite easy to hit.
> 
> ...



I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.  You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse shit.  I've run about 5 DP2A's, and while I'm sure my experience comes nowhere near yours, I can tell you for a fact that in order to pass the course you have to pass the 9mm shoot, which involves engaging fig 11's out to 25 meters.  Therefore, the individuals on these courses certainly would be able to "hit anyone at 12 meters".  If your experience has been different, perhaps your students need a lesson on which way the pistol's supposed to point?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's close range as far as I'm concerned.   You can see the whites of their eyes.   I think the definition of "lethal range" with a knife was desribed on this thread and was somewhere within those distances.



I agree it's close range, pistols are by their nature a close range weapon.  If Slim were to say that only very good and experienced shooters could hit a target from, say, FIFTY meters, that I would agree with.  But saying most people can't hit something at 12 meters, that's just silly.  Especialy with today's nintendo generation - years of duck-hunt and house-of-the-dead have taught them how to hold and fire a pistol pretty well.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.   You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse crap.   I've run about 5 DP2A's, and while I'm sure my experience comes nowhere near yours, I can tell you for a fact that in order to pass the course you have to pass the 9mm shoot, which involves engaging fig 11's out to 25 meters.   Therefore, the individuals on these courses certainly would be able to "hit anyone at 12 meters".   If your experience has been different, perhaps your students need a lesson on which way the pistol's supposed to point?
> 
> I agree it's close range, pistols are by their nature a close range weapon.   If Slim were to say that only very good and experienced shooters could hit a target from, say, FIFTY meters, that I would agree with.   But saying most people can't hit something at 12 meters, that's just silly.   Especialy with today's nintendo generation - years of duck-hunt and house-of-the-dead have taught them how to hold and fire a pistol pretty well.



A well made argument completely pissed away by the last line. 

Seriously, Duck Hunt? C'mon.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> What is your qualification then? How is it a poor argument?
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out who get to decide what qualifies as a "good" or "bad" argument.



Guns certainly make people more effective at killing; this is why I advocate their use in self-defence - it gives you a better chance of putting the threat down.   This is also why we've seen more gang-violence become homicides; guns are simply more effective at putting people down.   However, *this in no way makes it *easier* to commit murder and target civilians*, which you've asserted.   Violence, especially the wide-spread violence in youth-street gangs (which, as I've stated, is similar in scale and scope to intercine violence seen in hunter/gatherer tribes) does not need a firearm introduced to make it easier or more desirable to commit a violent act.   You take the guns out of gangs (which seems to be a pipedream anyways) and you will not see these guys give up and go home; if they are intent on violence, they'll do so.

It is this intent that efforts must be aimed at, not its execution.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

It's the basic premise of Gun Control that I find offensive:  That a 105 pound woman should have to fist-fight her 265 pound rapist.  When Wendy Kukier - et al - say Gun Control is a women's health issue, they are right - it is.

Tom


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

> I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.   You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse crap.



Is it?

Although a figure 11 target is roughly the same size as the upper three quarters of an average human being the critical areas that need to be hit to put someone down are not.

I have trained senior NCO's (including one from your unit) who have had quite a hard time with accurately shooting an automatic pistol and hitting anything of value with it. And, to be honest, I'm having some trouble believing your data about the ranges at which your students were able to score consecutive hits with a 9mm. Because most people can't...Soldiers or not. If you don't believe me that go ask the person who's name I'm going to PM you what he thought of our course and how well he did. 

Also bear in mind that we don't teach people to shoot targets...As the military does. We teach them to survive gunfights. And yes I'me very familier with Dave Grossman's work....You're leaving quite a bit out with that sweeping general statment.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Guns certainly make people more effective at killing; this is why I advocate their use in self-defence - it gives you a better chance of putting the threat down.  This is also why we've seen more gang-violence become homicides; guns are simply more effective at putting people down.  However, *this in no way makes it *easier* to commit murder and target civilians*, which you've asserted.  Violence, especially the wide-spread violence in youth-street gangs (which, as I've stated, is similar in scale and scope to intercine violence seen in hunter/gatherer tribes) does not need a firearm introduced to make it easier or more desirable to commit a violent act.  You take the guns out of gangs (which seems to be a pipedream anyways) and you will not see these guys give up and go home; if they are intent on violence, they'll do so.
> 
> It is this intent that efforts must be aimed at, not its execution.



You contradict yourself in your statements: first be saying that guns make it easier to kill and admitted that it adds to gang-related murder. And then you go off on some tangent that totally implies the opposite. Huh?

I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population. 

You really want to take a look at violence-murder in Toronto? Take a look at how much of has been committed by handgun. And then compare it to recent years.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population.



So how is a handgun ban going to affect gang-related behaviour when all the guns are coming across the border? Solve the roote problem, instead of whinning votes and leaving the problem to get larger.

See since the LIbs have created a govt of special intrest groups who all whine when the cops do try to do something they know that if they ever really tried to clean the problem up they'd be out of office and called racist and whatever else the groups could be thougt of.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

"I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population."

- We have been registering handguns in Canada since 1934.  Now, if people want to BAN guns from coming into the country illegally, all they have to do is stop all of the gun smuggling at the same place they manage to stop all of the illegal drugs and people from being smuggled in.

I mean, that works, right?

Right?

Er, wait a minute...

Tom


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> So how is a handgun ban going to affect gang-related behaviour when all the guns are coming across the border? Solve the roote problem, instead of whinning votes and leaving the problem to get larger.



So, like, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm not FOR the handgun ban??


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> You contradict yourself in your statements: first be saying that guns make it easier to kill and admitted that it adds to gang-related murder. And then you go off on some tangent that totally implies the opposite. Huh?



You are mixing two concepts of lethality of crimes and crimes committed together.

If you want to reduce the lethality of gang violence, then stopping gang-members from using them will probably help, although not at any effective level.   Considering that these make up a small percentage of the homicides committed every year and a small percentage of the criminal activity conducted by gangs each year, I'm not interested or worried about reducing the magnitude of lethality on todays streets.   Quite frankly, I don't see this as an issue requiring loads of public money and certainly not one requiring the average, law-abiding Canadian to surrender a freedom for the false notion of security.   If you take a gun from a gang-banger, he's going to get a knife and we would most likely see a rise in stabbing deaths down in Jane and Finch. 

But gun violence isn't confined to gangs and gang violence isn't confined to guns.   That is why focusing on "guns and gangs" is a bad approach.

The goal (and real political focus) should be to reduce gangland violence - period - of which gun-deaths is but a small portion; gang violence usually breaks out due to dispute over "turf" or illicit business conflicts.  The crime will still be committed sans firearms, but there is less of a chance of it being lethal (but not much; as said before, a person can be plenty lethal if he chooses so).   I don't care if it is a drive-by shooting, a swarm beating, or rocks through the window - they are all symptoms of the problem.   Focusing on guns (the symptom) ignores the fact that if "demand" to use violence exists, there is a much larger "supply" then handguns alone.   Your argument that the presence of guns act as a trigger for violence does not address this the root issue - it paints guns themselves as having an implicit effect on the causality of gang violence.   If someone really wants to kill another person, they don't need a gun to convince them that it is possible.



> I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population.
> 
> You really want to take a look at violence-murder in Toronto? Take a look at how much of has been committed by handgun. And then compare it to recent years.



"heckuva lot easier"?   What is their "business"?   I don't think gangs and other forms of organized crime exist to wipe each other out in an orgy of violence.

As for a danger to the general population, how many innocent people a year are hit in shootout cross-fires?   I think you are inflating the threat; and when doing so brings about faulty ideas on potential solutions, there is a problem.

As for the stats, I already did look them up:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, lets see what Statscan says.
> 
> http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal01.htm?sdi=homicides
> 
> ...



Now, you've made it quite clear that you don't support a gun-ban, which is fine.   But the argument that you've been hawking here is built upon the same faulty premise as the handgun ban is - that firearms are correlated to an increase in violence.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

"So how is a handgun ban going to affect gang-related behaviour when all the guns are coming across the border? Solve the roote problem, instead of whinning votes and leaving the problem to get larger." - Slim

- As long as we understand the problem is we continue to recycle psychopathic gang-bangers instead of incarcerating for 50 years or executing them.

As for 'longer sentences don't have an effect', well that depends on the effect you want them to have.   If a puke is identified as such when he is 13, I want him to have as few years of freedom as possible, thus reducing society's exposure to the risk.

The problem is an animate one - the puke - not an inanimate one - the gun.

We also have a political dilemma, where society is convinced that a raped woman, lying on the ground strangled by her own pantyhose, is morally superior to a woman with a smoking handgun standing over the dead body of her attempted rapist.

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2005)

Longer sentences do work.  Every year inside is a year of safety for all the potential victims outside.

I can hit a fig 11 at 25m too.  Is that supposed to be in any meaningful sense comparable to overcoming the physical problem of hitting a moving object and the emotional problem of shooting a person?

The odds of being a murder victim are small; so what?  For that reason we should further infringe basic rights to mitigate *an even smaller probability of being the victim of a lawful and prudent firearm owner*?  Nice logic; take care your hindbrain doesn't suffer the same short-circuit or you will stop breathing.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can hit a fig 11 at 25m too.   Is that supposed to be in any meaningful sense comparable to overcoming the physical problem of hitting a moving object and the emotional problem of shooting a person?



Nicely put.

The gang-bangers don't seem to have the same problem as the rest of us with regard to the emotional state of killing other people.

thanks god they don't have the training to go with it!


----------



## 48Highlander (12 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Is it?
> 
> Although a figure 11 target is roughly the same size as the upper three quarters of an average human being the critical areas that need to be hit to put someone down are not.
> 
> ...



I see.  So our disagreement seems to be mainly in deffinitions.

I don't know how effective your average person would be at hitting "critical areas", I was just disputing your claim that the person with a pistol can't hit another body from 12 meters.  Sure, if you define a hit to be a given area on the target, then it gets much harder.  We got some of the troops to the point where they could hit clay pigeons (stationary) from 10 meters, but most couldn't, so yeah if you're talking about hitting the head/chest area, you're probably right about most people not being able to do it from 12 meters.




			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> A well made argument completely pissed away by the last line.
> 
> Seriously, Duck Hunt? C'mon.



You'd be surprised.  While videogames obviously aren't realistic simulators, firing a plastic pistol in a game works on the same principle as firing a paintball gun, or a lazer-tag gun, or a real pistol.  They all have different characteristics, but learning how to use any one of them properly will make you better at using the others.  Sort of how someone who's driven a go cart will have an easier time at driving a real car than someone who's never been inside any sort of motorized vehicle before.  Obvously pacticing with the real thing works better, but every little bit helps.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

> You'd be surprised.  While videogames obviously aren't realistic simulators, firing a plastic pistol in a game works on the same principle as firing a paintball gun, or a lazer-tag gun, or a real pistol.  They all have different characteristics, but learning how to use any one of them properly will make you better at using the others.  Sort of how someone who's driven a go cart will have an easier time at driving a real car than someone who's never been inside any sort of motorized vehicle before.  Obvously pacticing with the real thing works better, but every little bit helps.



As much as I am loath to agree I am going to in this case.

If you have seen/read/heard about Col Dave Grossman and what he's doing right now you would quickly realize that all these bandbang-shootemup video games are infact firearms training simulators. I won't go into specifics but if you have the time go read some of Grossman's stuff and you'll very quickly realize what I'm talking about.


----------



## dutchie (13 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> As much as I am loath to agree I am going to in this case.
> 
> If you have seen/read/heard about Col Dave Grossman and what he's doing right now you would quickly realize that all these bandbang-shootemup video games are infact firearms training simulators. I won't go into specifics but if you have the time go read some of Grossman's stuff and you'll very quickly realize what I'm talking about.



Medal of Honour, ok, but Duck Hunt? Point taken none-the-less.


----------



## Monsoon (13 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> It's the basic premise of Gun Control that I find offensive:  That a 105 pound woman should have to fist-fight her 265 pound rapist.  When Wendy Kukier - et al - say Gun Control is a women's health issue, they are right - it is.


Mace.
Tasers.


----------



## Dissident (13 Dec 2005)

Moot point.

Tasers and other less lethal weapons are also prohibited.

Sure, you can get pepper spray. And I don't think anyone in this country would find guilty a women who used bear/pepperspray at an intended rapist. But the philosophie is that everyone should rely on the proper authority to defend them. No ones can be relied on to use proper judgement when defending themselves. Only Police or the government knows whats best for you...


----------



## clasper (13 Dec 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Mace.
> Tasers.



Time to add stun guns to the banned list: 

Police worried over increasing criminal use of stun guns
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/12/stunguns051212.html

And snowballs:

Assault charges laid after snowball fight turns ugly
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/12/snowball-fight-051212.html


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

The only thing that should make a snowball fight ugly is when:

1) Yellow snow is used,

2) Doggy Doo is added.

Yes, I get ticked when little brats throw snowballs at my car, that's why I'm working on an old tennis ball launcher to mount on my car modified for "Clean" snowballs.

Fight fire with fire and Fun with Fun!!!

Ben


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2005)

Some teenagers threw iceballs at my truck a few years ago and broke my mirror. I guarentee two of those kids won't throw snowballs at cars anymore  :  Those things can do some damage, just like throwing a rock.



> **I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.  You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse crap.**
> 
> I have trained senior NCO's (including one from your unit) who have had quite a hard time with accurately shooting an automatic pistol and hitting anything of value with it. And, to be honest, I'm having some trouble believing your data about the ranges at which your students were able to score consecutive hits with a 9mm. Because most people can't...Soldiers or not.




I'm going to back Slim up on this one. Having recently been on a support weapons course (which teaches the 9 mm shooting & coaching) and shot the 9mm PWT on another week-end - most people are surprised at how bad they shoot. Lots of people needed to reshoot or fire the same serial a few times to pass.  For some reason people think shooting handguns is a piece of cake.



> It's the basic premise of Gun Control that I find offensive:  That a 105 pound woman should have to fist-fight her 265 pound rapist.  When Wendy Kukier - et al - say Gun Control is a women's health issue, they are right - it is.


Well said.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I'm going to back Slim up on this one. Having recently been on a support weapons course (which teaches the 9 mm shooting & coaching) and shot the 9mm PWT on another week-end - most people are surprised at how bad they shoot. Lots of people needed to reshoot or fire the same serial a few times to pass.   For some reason people think shooting handguns is a piece of cake.
> Well said.



With nearly 30 yrs of auto loading pistol shooting (yes the good ole Browning) , instructing for the CF, shooting CFSAC, and even instructing   .38s for an armoured car firm from 85-90, plus service in two armies, I too, would have to agree here.

Cold beers (you need one here, 0830 and 32C out already),

Wes

EDIT - I will say however, some pers pick it up quite well, and are bloody good, but thats the minority.


----------



## Fry (14 Dec 2005)

I know it's kinda hard to stick to topic, seeing this went to 18 pages, but I'll get back to the handgun ban.

I currently do not have a restricted firearms license, although my name is on the list, I'll be doing the course in the new year. 

As childish as this may sound, Paul Martin is IMO, a ****-****. Seriously, did you guys check out how much this ban will cost? I may be mistaken, but I thought on TV it said at least 650 million! This is insane. Why?


This only affects law-biding citizens. Why? Because who commits crimes with registered firearms? I personally think the whole gun registry program is crap, but I won't get into that.

The crap you have to go through to obtain a handgun, and use it, transport it.... the government basically knows your every move. Many handguns are being smuggled across the border from the USA, that's why there's crimes committed with ILLEGAL handguns.

Martin says there's no money for us Newfoundlanders, no chance to bring our weather station back to Gander, Goosebay must be closed down, etc. Yet there's 650 million+ going to be wasted on this nonsense? I think this somehow should be a provincial decision. Ok, if many people in Ontario like shooting others and committing crimes with handguns, fine. Ban it there. 

Us Newfoundlanders, and other provinces who don't have high numbers of handgun related crimes shouldn't have to suffer, because Paul Martin is trying to buy votes and waste more tax dollars. He should take the multi billion dollar gun registry program as well as the 650million he has for this stupid idea, and put it into the CF. At least it's not going to be wasted.

With this move, myself and many more have ruled out voting Martin and his band of crooks.

I'm happy with Danny, so it's Harper. (for too many reasons I don't want to list.)

end rant









Edited for improper language

And for the record I agree with the post
Slim


----------



## redleafjumper (14 Dec 2005)

What is astounding is not that Paul Martin's Liberals want to steal the property of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians, but that there are actually some people who don't have a problem with that act.  I hope Fry and others in the Maritimes and Ontario are much more successful in electing conservatives and de-electing liberals than has been the case in the past.


----------



## Acorn (14 Dec 2005)

The absurd argument I've seen is that my firearms may be stolen, and used in a crime. Therefore I should be forbidden from owning them. I hate to dredge up the car argument again, since it's a bit cliche, but consider this:

A firearms owner who fails to take the legally mandated precautions/procedures in securing the firearm (locked in a safe, trigger lock, etc) can be held responsible if the firearm is stolen and used in a crime. In fact, the gun owner can be liable for up to 10 years imprisonment.

A car owner who leaves the car unclocked with the keys in it (or, as is common in some places in winter - running) won't be held responsible for the high-speed chase which kills several pedestrians and/or other drivers, which results from his car being stolen.

Put the onus on those responsible, not the implement they use.


----------



## R0B (14 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> The fact is that if someone wants to kill another person, there is very little we can do about it. That person, well motivated, will use whatever he has to to kill him. That's not my point. My point is this: Get that guy when he commits an armed robbery, before he progresses to murder, and put him away. Make it so unattractive to commit crime whiole armed with guns that criminals will use other means. I'll bet the murder rate goes down, not because we've scared them straight, but rather that we threw them in prison for armed robbery for 25 years. It'll also even the playing field in armed robbberies. Hard-working entreprenuers who are robbed in their corner-store at knife point might start fighting back with clubs, spray, etc where they wouldn't have with a gun.
> 
> Guns belong to hunters, cops, soldiers, target-shooters, and otherwise law-abiding Canadians. This rabble has given them a bad rap.



I think we just need to get serious with the sentences the justice system hands out. Ten years should mean ten years, and good behavior shouldn't lessen a term, but rather, bad behavior should lengthen it. And I'm completely against adding time if a gun is used in a crime, because if the person is willing to commit the crime, they're already risking time, so all it really does is demonize firearms, particularly handguns, which some idiots now seem to think are only useful to nefarious individuals. I would however, support adding time for any crime committed with any weapon, just nothing that singles out firearms.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Your out to lunch on this, but I'll play along. So your saying every gun a Gang Banger has is lawfully registered to that person? I thought not. The minute it leaves the registered owner, with out his permission, it becomes illegal. I think you may have meant smuggled, and there are thousands of those in Canada. Ask the cops or Customs, they'll verify it. We get them here at the border by the bucket fulls, and that's just what our overworked Customs guys catch.



No. By "illegal" guns, I'm referring to any gun in the possession of someone without the proper permit for it. I'm saying that illegal guns aren't a major problem, because there are so few of them.



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> For the LAST TIME, I'm not trying to say that guns are THE ONE AND ONLY ENEMY, but they ARE worth trying to stop, in terms of illegal handguns.



A lot of things would be worth trying to stop if the government had infinite sums of money to waste on every little nuisance. How many murders are committed by illegal handguns every year? I don't know, but if only 548 homicides were committed in 2003, and only about a quarter of those were committed by all kinds of guns, I'd say it's a very, very minor issue. On the other hand, the theft and wanton destruction of millions of dollars worth of firearms every year by the federal government is an issue that could easily be remedied, and wouldn't cost a cent. In fact, it would save money.

Can you honestly say that removing all illegal handguns from the streets would reduce the murder rate? I don't know if it would. For one, illegal handguns are really only available to successful criminals. They sell for $2000 + on "the streets," so it's not as if any crackhead can just go out and buy one. Have you considered that the murder rate would possibly rise if certain drug dealers and gangsters were deprived of their firearms, by leveling the playing field and opening them to attack by gunless individuals?



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> You really want to take a look at violence-murder in Toronto? Take a look at how much of has been committed by handgun. And then compare it to recent years.



Bill Blair (Toronto's Chief of Police) gave a lecture at my school a few weeks ago. I left early, but not before he said that the media had been over-reporting handgun crimes, and mentioned that a few years ago, a similar streak occurred.

Anyways, do you actually have statistics to show that gun crime in Toronto has increased dramatically? I was told that the increase was minor. Isn't it interesting though, that violent crimes, particularly with firearms, have been going down in the US but not in Canada? I guess it's because that firearms registry has been working so damned well.


----------



## Highland Lad (14 Dec 2005)

One reason gun crime in the GTA has gone up so dramatically in recent years is the rise of the "Rent-a-Gun" criminal.

Essentially, you have criminal entrepreneurs who have possession of a weapon who charge for its use. Think about it: only one person has to try to hide a weapon (when not in use), and hundreds can benefit from its availability! It's the free-market system at its finest, no?

And just like the free-market system, once the Liberals go ahead with PMPM's ridiculous promise (although not even that's a guarantee - remember how the Liberals won their landslide victory based in part on their promise to scrap the GST?), the young entrepeneur will be free to jack up his prices even more.... what party do you think this astute young businessman will vote for? (I'd love to see that in a campaign ad  ;D)


----------



## Fry (14 Dec 2005)

I apologize for that language slim, glad to see people agree with me though. 


Is Paul Martin really insane? Lies, lies and more lies. Waste money, tell more lies, try to act educated on topics that he himself probably haven't even heard of until his cabinet decided to try to gain votes.... the cycle continues.


Sorry for this next bit to stray off topic slightly, but I think it's related to the cirmes that the Liberals are committing. Just look at this Kyoto bit. Harper nailed Martin when he said the Liberals failed on the Kyoto thing. Martin is promising that the Liberals are going to push it forward, but they haven't even begun to do this. Why?

According to Harper, Martin's campaign jet uses many times more fuel than Harper's campaign jet. Just a start, but when asked about that on TV, Martin was dumbfounded and just babbled something about they plan on getting Kyoto off the ground.

Politicians are Politicians... but There is no way in hell that Martin can be voted back in, unless we all lose our marbles. Cut and slash, cut and slash.

Personally, I think we really should beef up our policing services and our armed forces, put more money into education thus lowering tuition. Stiffer sentences for ALL crimes.

Just to start. Hmm, prehaps I should run for PM.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said on his monthly talk show on CP24 last night (Tuesday 13 Dec 2005), that he does not support the idea of a handgun, that he is in favour of stronger sentences for using a gun in a crime, sentences that will be served completely and that cannot and will not be bargained away.  Finally, some common sense coming out of T.O..  Although I have not been a big supporter of Blair and his "group hug" way of policing, this I support.  He is certainly sticking his neck out there in the lib-left commune we have going on here in Toronto.  The convservatives need to pick up on this, and show that the guy who has been handling this problem all year while Miller et al. were asleep at thier posts doesn't believe it has any merit.


----------



## R0B (14 Dec 2005)

Highland Lad said:
			
		

> One reason gun crime in the GTA has gone up so dramatically in recent years is the rise of the "Rent-a-Gun" criminal.
> 
> Essentially, you have criminal entrepreneurs who have possession of a weapon who charge for its use. Think about it: only one person has to try to hide a weapon (when not in use), and hundreds can benefit from its availability! It's the free-market system at its finest, no?



If that were the case, you'd see repeated use of the same guns as exhibited by rifling marks on bullets retrieved from crime scenes.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said on his monthly talk show on CP24 last night (Tuesday 13 Dec 2005), that he does not support the idea of a handgun, that he is in favour of stronger sentences for using a gun in a crime, sentences that will be served completely and that cannot and will not be bargained away.  Finally, some common sense coming out of T.O..  Although I have not been a big supporter of Blair and his "group hug" way of policing, this I support.  He is certainly sticking his neck out there in the lib-left commune we have going on here in Toronto.  The convservatives need to pick up on this, and show that the guy who has been handling this problem all year while Miller et al. were asleep at thier posts doesn't believe it has any merit.



Vilifying handguns will only make it harder and harder for honest citizens to own them, and completely crush the dream of some sort of concealed carry law.


----------



## Monsoon (14 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> What is astounding is not that Paul Martin's Liberals want to steal the property of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians, but that there are actually some people who don't have a problem with that act.  I hope Fry and others in the Maritimes and Ontario are much more successful in electing conservatives and de-electing liberals than has been the case in the past.


Not likely - the Liberals are polling above 45% in Atlantic Canada. That's clean sweep territory.  The handgun ban proposal won't win them any more seats since handgun violence isn't a problem there, but it won't cost them anything since most recreational gun owners there are of the long gun variety.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> If that were the case, you'd see repeated use of the same guns as exhibited by rifling marks on bullets retrieved from crime scenes.



How do we know that is not the case?  Do you work for TPS FIS or the Ontario Centre for Forensic science?


----------



## R0B (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> How do we know that is not the case?   Do you work for TPS FIS or the Ontario Centre for Forensic science?



If this were the case, then the problem wouldn't really be illegal guns being smuggled from the United States, it would be a few guns being rented around. The police haven't been linking these crimes together, and they would be able to if this were a matter of gun renting.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> If this were the case, then the problem wouldn't really be illegal guns being smuggled from the United States, it would be a few guns being rented around. The police haven't been linking these crimes together, and they would be able to if this were a matter of gun renting.



You sure about that, how do you think the cops were able to execute Project Impact and Pathfinder and takedown those Malvern gangs whose criminal proceedings have just begun.


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

"How do we know that is not the case?  Do you work for TPS FIS or the Ontario Centre for Forensic science?"

- Less people do all the time?

Remember a few years back, the feds closed a crime lab to help pay for the gun registry.  True logic.

Not to mention the money allegedly pulled from breast cancer research because guns were a greater female health issue.

Tom


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Dec 2005)

Pure stupidity. 
$650 million would be better spent cleaning our hospitals and preventing infections. How many people die every year due to improper cleaning of our hospitals? 

Or we could salt more stairs, did you know that you have a 50% chance of death in the 12 months following a hip fracture? 
There is the real threat to Canadian safety "slip and falls".


----------



## Fry (15 Dec 2005)

Being a newfoundlander, I'm noticing more and more people talking about voting Conservative. Especially the younger people such as myself. Before, we could really care less about who got in, but many are angry with the Libs in my area.

All I have to do is go back and remember the trouble we had to go through, to get money that was promised to us by Martin, how went and said we couldn't have it.

Each time I think about it, Paul Martin and his corporation of crooks get worse by the minute.


As for recreation out around here, target practicing with sidearms is growing more and more. 

Paul Martin mentioned that several federal buildings here in Newfoundland would be closed. One of these being the RCMP headquarters, East White Hills Rd, St. John's.

This, mind you, is a new building, which took millions upon millions to build. It 'needs' to be closed because there's no money to keep it running. So, Martin will lose more money  by closing it down, selling it for a fraction of what it cost to build, and someone'll luck out by purchasing it for a cheap price.

Half a billion here, half a billion there.... with a little money management, we could become 100 times more wealthy than what we are. Pity, such a shame.


----------



## Old Ranger (15 Dec 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> Is Paul Martin really insane? I'd have to say YES!
> 
> Personally, I think we really should beef up our policing services and our armed forces, put more money into education thus lowering tuition and Violent Crime rates.. Stiffer sentences for ALL crimes.


----------



## UberCree (15 Dec 2005)

Man accused of shooting officer was under firearms ban
Last Updated Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:34:06 EST 
CBC News
A 40-year-old man with a history of disputes with police has been arraigned on a charge of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Const. Valérie Gignac in Laval, north of Montreal. 

François Pepin had been charged repeatedly with issuing death threats and harassing police officers and court workers. He was under a ten-year court order barring him from possessing firearms, the CBC's Amanda Pfeffer reports from Laval. 

  
François Pepin  
Despite the ban, which dated from 1999, he had asked for, and was granted, permission to use a gun for hunting during the fall season. 


FROM DEC. 14, 2005: Suspect surrenders after Quebec police officer slain

He had been charged in recent weeks with stalking another woman officer on the Laval force, and had been arrested in connection with that charge by Const. Gignac and her partner, the city's police chief said. 

Along with the murder charge, Pepin was arraigned Thursday on charges relating to the firearms ban and possession of a high-powered rifle. 

He didn't enter a plea and his lawyer didn't seek bail. He is being held in jail and will be back in court for a preliminary hearing on Feb. 15. 

Shot through an apartment door 

Police union officials told reporters it was "highly disturbing" that a man forbidden to possess firearms would be permitted to have one under any circumstances. 

Const. Gignac, 25, was shot through an apartment door shortly after she and her partner reached the scene of a noisy quarrel in the northern district of Laval des Rapides on Wednesday morning. 

"The type of gun you would use to shoot elephants" 
She wore a flak vest but the bullets apparently passed through or below it. Such vests may stop a pistol bullet but offer limited protection against more powerful rifle rounds. 

Laval police chief Jean-Pierre Gariepy said the two officers knew Pepin was dangerous because they had arrested him about a week earlier in connection with the stalking charge. 

No chance against a .338 rifle bullet 

He said two shots were fired as they flanked the door and one struck Const. Gignac. 

She had no chance, he said, against a .338-calibre bullet from a rifle he described as "the type of gun you would use to shoot elephants." 

  
Const. Valérie Gignac  
He said she was facing away from the door when the bullet hit her in the lower back and passed through her stomach. 

She was taken to hospital in critical condition and later died. She had been on the force for four years. 

Pepin surrendered after a seven-hour standoff with heavily armed police backed by an armoured personnel carrier. 

Montreal's La Presse reported Thursday that Pepin had been convicted this month of harassing a woman police officer and fined $500. 

"He was kind of in love with her, you know," the police chief told a news conference. "He was always trying to get in touch with her in many ways." 

He would often drop by the station near his home and had a known penchant for female officers, the Globe and Mail reported. 

"I'm told he had fantasies about women police officers, " Const. Guy Lajeunesse told the Globe. "He'd go by the police station and say, `I love women police officers. I find them beautiful.'"


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

Great, just great.  Another woman shot by another Montreal psycho.  No doubt, Wendy Cukier and Landslide Annie will beat us to death with this one, too.

The guy should have been locked up, but no, this is ALL the fault of Skeet shooters in Moncton and Duck hunters in Prince Albert, and mark my words they will PAY.

Just wait...

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Great, just great.   Another woman shot by another Montreal psycho.   No doubt, Wendy Cukier and Landslide Annie will beat us to death with this one, too.
> 
> The guy should have been locked up, but no, this is ALL the fault of Skeet shooters in Moncton and Duck hunters in Prince Albert, and mark my words they will PAY.
> 
> ...



Actually Anne McLellan was shown on CP24, at some election event saying that neither the current registry nor the proposed hand gun ban would have stopped this guy, but they are still effective tools in the fight against crime. ???


----------



## UberCree (15 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Actually Anne McLellan was shown on CP24, at some election event saying that neither the current registry nor the proposed hand gun ban would have stopped this guy, but they are still effective tools in the fight against crime. ???


Enforcement of the current laws would have stopped him.


----------



## R0B (15 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You sure about that, how do you think the cops were able to execute Project Impact and Pathfinder and takedown those Malvern gangs whose criminal proceedings have just begun.



I hope you aren't trying to compare the communal weapons a powerful and well-organized criminal organization like the Malvern Crew had to some sort of "gun rental" scheme. Even if you are, however, it wasn't even close to an important part of the police take-down of the Malvern Crew.


----------



## Fry (16 Dec 2005)

I can't believe Martin had the nerve to say that this Handgun ban isn't for votes.


What my grandfather always said, whether by a gun, automobile, knife, poison, if someone wants to kill another, they will do it. Banning LEGAL firearms isn't the answer to that, it's the answer to "How can Martin waste more of the money he claims not to have?".


I hope Harper eats him.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Dec 2005)

> Police union officials told reporters it was "highly disturbing" that a man forbidden to possess firearms would be permitted to have one under any circumstances.



i think it's called owning a handgun illegally.

I'm shocked that criminals and murderers don't care that handguns are banned.  :


----------



## redleafjumper (17 Dec 2005)

Apparently it wasn't a handgun, but a .338 rifle.  They have been calling it an elephant gun which isn't really correct, but that calibre is certainly a long range high power cartridge for North American dangerous game.  This incident is a classic example of the failure of the Campbell red tory and subsequent Liberal firearm control regimes.


(edited to correct typo)


----------



## TCBF (17 Dec 2005)

http://www.sermonaudio.ca/users/scrapc68/video/BruceMontague.ca_HiddenAgendaRevealed.wmv

Above is the video of Landslide Annie saying they won't ban guns followed by PMPM's announcement that they will.

Tom


----------



## Marauder (18 Dec 2005)

Keep Canada safe from illegally owned guns, NUKE Tarrana!!! And Windsor, too, because frankly, if there ever was a city that proved the logic and neccesity of tactical nukes, it's Windsor.

Sorry, I had a moment there.


----------



## Fry (18 Dec 2005)

A 338 is quite powerful, but I agree, I wouldn't exactly hunt elephants with it. I'd opt for a larger calibre for sure. 


And well, if firearms were banned, and infact none existed in Canada... and this individual wanted to kill this officer, he'd be trained in some other form of killing, knives, self defense, using a car , etc.

Just because handguns, or non-restricted firearms get banned, does Martin think all of those people with murderous intent will simply gather around and sing campfire songs? I think not.

My point, if someone really wants to murder, they will, whether it's with a gun or a car.


----------



## Old Ranger (21 Dec 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> My point, if someone really wants to murder, they will, whether it's with a gun or a car.



Or a Seal Club...


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2005)

<sigh> - you know this is going to give impetus to this inane political move by the Liberals.  Meanwhile, this, which happened on the same day, will be ignored.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

> Some witnesses said she had been standing outside a Foot Locker store when she was shot in the head.
> 
> One man was working at the store's cash register when people began rushing in to safety.
> 
> "I just came out and I saw a girl lying, she was bloody on the ground, she was still shaking, I don't think she was quite dead yet."



Heh, a few years ago I was working at that store as a security guard.  That area is so bad that in a 50 meter radius 4 out of 5 stores all had security.  Sam the Record Man is just across the street and they had both uniformed and undercover.

Instead of banning guns, how many of these victims could have been saved if the guards were properly trained and armed?


----------



## Kal (27 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Instead of banning guns, how many of these victims could have been saved if the guards were properly trained and armed?



     That's expensive though, dude.   :  Seriously though, those types of guards are obviously going to command a higher price than non-armed, poorly trained guards, and I'm not sure if many stores would be willing to pay the extra cost.  Mabe after a shooting, but it's too late then, right?  Then again, better late than never right?  Anyways back to what I was saying.  I'm not sure how well the public image would go over if suddenly armed guards were to patrol and while I don't care about that so much, I'm sure the companies would if it relates to negative images and lower profits.  

I would image that it would be a bit of a headache for the security agency getting guards trained PROPERLY and to keep up their training and certification on an on-going basis and for some agencies it may not be worth that headache.


----------



## Old Ranger (30 Dec 2005)

I've seen Armed guards in US malls.  Only a few walking around a huge mall makes a big difference.

Or do Police Deparments put satalite stations in malls?  They have one at the Cookstown Outlet mall (400 & 89) and it has worked pretty well there.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (30 Dec 2005)

One of those wounded was an off duty Police Officer.  Why in Canada are off duty Police Officers not allowed to carry a firearm off duty?  That may have at least stopped this poor girl from being killed.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> One of those wounded was an off duty Police Officer.  Why in Canada are off duty Police Officers not allowed to carry a firearm off duty?  That may have at least stopped this poor girl from being killed.



...because Canada doesn't want any trained citizens carrying guns around - it is an anathema of the nanny state.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2005)

Just in:

NEWS RELEASE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release
December 29, 2005

AN OPEN LETTER FROM PREMIER MCGUINTY TO FEDERAL LEADERS ON GUN CRIMES

Dear Prime Minister Martin, Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe:

Earlier this week, in the middle of a holiday season that should be filled with family, friends and happiness, the life of one young woman was taken and six others were injured in a downtown Toronto shooting spree. As you are very much aware, this is only the latest in a series of shootings that continue to kill and injure.

I know you share my deep concern and determination to do all we can to make our streets safer.

Effectively addressing guns and gangs will require a renewed and sustained effort on the part of all levels of government working together with our police. Among other things, we need to address the inadequacy of Canada's criminal penalties for gun-related crimes. It is in this vein that I am writing to you.

While any effective plan to address gun crimes must be comprehensive in nature and address both the causes of crime as well as the crime itself, part of any such plan must include severe penalties.

Only severe penalties can clearly convey the gravity of gun-related crimes and our society's intolerance for them.

On behalf of Ontarians, I am asking for your commitment to move as quickly as possible under the new Parliament to amend the Criminal Code in order to:

*Impose a ban on handguns * 
Impose a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for illegal possession of a handgun 
Impose increased mandatory minimum sentences for all gun crimes 
Create two new Criminal Code offences with mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with the intent to steal a gun and for breaking and entering with the intent to steal a gun 
Impose a reverse onus on bail for all gun crimes, and 
Set more severe penalties for any breach of bail conditions. 

We must -- and will -- continue to work together on behalf of all Ontarians to ensure our communities are safe. This work can only succeed if we build on a criminal justice system that treats gun crimes with the severity they deserve.

Yours truly,

Dalton McGuinty

Premier

c: His Worship David Miller, Mayor, City of Toronto

Chief William Blair, Toronto Police Service

Chief Armand La Barge, President, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police

Mr. John Tory, Leader, Ontario PC Party

Mr. Howard Hampton, Leader, Ontario NDP Party


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2005)

Yesterday on Fox News' "Your World", Fox's Stewart Varney, who is apparently
a naturalized conservative American ( and a VERY devoted and loyal one from
the sounds of him - originally from Unfree Kingdom ), had it out with a
Canadian named Patrice Brunet ( attorney - The Quebec Law Network ), about
gun control.

Varney REALLY got pissed at this little SOB, who kept claiming that
therecent shootings in Canada were the fault of the U.S., because "we don't
have any gun control laws", and of course Canada does because they're all
civilized etc.

He said that if cars had existed 200 years ago, they might have been
considered a right like keeping and bearing arms are, and it might be
illegal to license them here now too. As a libertarian, I actually often
wonder why we have to get government permission to move about freely on the
roads. Restrictions on our right to travel using modern means,  seems as
socialist as gun control laws.

*I wish Varney had been better briefed before the interview, then he could
have pointed out to slick, that the U.S. already has 21,000 some gun control
laws and THEY DON'T WORK because attempts at prior restraint only infringe
the rights of good people, they don't stop criminals, because CRIMINALS
DON'T OBEY LAWS. Duh!

Which is WHY criminals are ILLEGALLY smuggling banned guns into Canada and
committing crimes with them.* Duh!

I wish Stewart Varney would at least follow up with this information and am
sending Fox News a copy of this email from my groups.

But kudos to Stewart for being such a loyal and devoted liberty-loving
American.

Yours In Liberty,  Melissa  - Colorado, U.S.A.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2005)

Let Ontario ban handguns; I will only laugh harder when more guys in Toronto bust caps into each other in the future as politicians are patting their backs for being self-serving statists.  Handguns are only good at close range anyways; I don't need them for when they come with the fetters....


----------



## UberCree (30 Dec 2005)

I detect there is some kind of twisted illogical paternalistic (racist) undertones amongst those that proclaim to want to ban guns.  I notice that the talk of these crimes being the product of 'marginalization' as Paul Martin says, is increasing.  No one amongst the anti-handgun lobby is suggesting that we crack down hard on these criminals, because by golly they are poor, helpless minority folk that are acting out of desperation.  As if minorities are incapable of reasonable thought and forced to act on instinct.  The fact that the talk of banning handguns pisses off army types (like us) probably pleases them beyond belief.  I imagine that they dislike us more than they dislike the inner city gangbangers.  They invision hangun owners to be the 'good ol boys' ... 'the man'... that should suffer and lose some of our power.     

Thoughts of an angy Cree man.


----------



## Blue Max (30 Dec 2005)

If Ontario wants to have some chance of solving their gang-banging troubles, then they had better hope that the Liberals are not voted in again. 

It is not to say that the other parties have a sure fire solution to this troubling gang problem, but the Liberals are only about what looks good and feels good in the short term (ban all Hand Guns) without any clear thought to wether this will have any real affect upon the problem.

Vote CPC.


----------



## 3rd Herd (31 Dec 2005)

Last night in Vancouver (Surrey) there were three hand gun shootings, it is almost a everyday occurrence. What really gets me is almost all of them are "new" comers to Canada. For get the high fa luting gun laws and who about enforcing some on the book immigration laws. It was nice to see the Indian army waitting for a Vancouver street racer who killed a lady on his return to his mother country. Happens once in a blue moon. So those of you back east quit whining, night clubbing in Van, flack jackets are the wear.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (31 Dec 2005)

3rd Herd... poor attitude.  

There have been 57 gun related deaths in Toronto this year.  One of them was a guy killed at a FUNERAL of another young lad killed by gunfire.  Lets not turn this into an east/west, who has the bigger problem thing.  Gun violence is a problem *everywhere.*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Gun violence is a problem *everywhere.*



Guns are as inanimate as fenceposts. *GANG* violence is a problem everywhere. There lies the problem. Solve that, and you'll solve a large part of what ails us.


----------



## 3rd Herd (31 Dec 2005)

Blackhorse
not trying to turn this into an east/west battle but I grew up in the area of T.O. where allot of the shooting now occur. Mostly I blame the media, more coverage back east. I think the above post by Reeceguy re: Gangs is accurate, solve the gang problem and you will solve allot of the gun problems. And yes there has been out here some recent successes in the "gang arena". As for the flack jacket comment you would be surprised at the number of weapons I have confiscated/had the RCMP confiscate and then charge student/parenet going down to the primary school level.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (31 Dec 2005)

3rd Herd

Recceguy is right.  I'm just pointing out that we have problems everywhere, not just in the LMD.  And I wouldn't be surprised at the amount of guns you have come across.  I come across them pretty regularly myself.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2005)

Are we really going to eliminate these things?  As far as I understand it, guns are a cultural thing - Japanese people don't buy guns because they've never done so.  As far as I see it Canada will never get away from firearms - our proximity to the United States (founded upon the notion of the armed citizen) and our own "frontier" culture, replete with hunting and shooting, ensures this.

The best solution to me appears not to try and hide and eliminate things that will not go away (War on Drugs anyone?), but to educate citizens and deal severely with those who continue to threaten the rest of society.   If somebody goes off the deep-end or wants to shoot a rival gang-member, they WILL find a gun to do it with no matter how many yellow ribbons we hand out for December 6.  This seems to be a two-fold strategy:

1)  Arm citizens - give those who wish the appropriate level of training in use of force, shooting, proper carriage and handling, threat identification, etc, etc the right to carry.  Ensure that citizens who wish to do this are vetted and regularly updated.  This is the citizen's insurance policy - LEO's will not always be around and there is nothing that should say they need a monopoly on use of firearms for self defence.  What if situations like Lupine or the Toronto shooting could have been avoided if the average citizen was more vigilant and prepared to defuse a situation with force?

2)  Slam the book, big time.  Gangs, petty crime, and youth violence will never go away - it is hardwired into man's competitive biology.  However, using a firearm in the commission of a crime should demand a big automatic sentence.  We'll see how tough gang-members in Toronto are when, upon being arrested, they are sent to a penal colony for 5 years for illegally possessing a firearm.

I repeat - if somebody wants to go out and shoot somebody, they WILL find away to do so - no amount of wishing or political rhetoric will change this fact.  The only thing that will protect us is if society is prepared to meet the threat head on....


----------



## The_Falcon (31 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 2)  Slam the book, big time.  Gangs, petty crime, and youth violence will never go away - it is hardwired into man's competitive biology.  However, using a firearm in the commission of a crime should demand a big automatic sentence.  We'll see how tough gang-members in Toronto are when, upon being arrested, they are sent to a penal colony for 5 years for illegally possessing a firearm.



These penal colonies would of course by located in the far north, right?


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2005)

No - they would be located in prominant Liberal ridings.


----------



## Old Ranger (31 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1)  Arm citizens - give those who wish the appropriate level of training in use of force, shooting, proper carriage and handling, threat identification, etc, etc the right to carry.  Ensure that citizens who wish to do this are vetted and regularly updated.  This is the citizen's insurance policy - LEO's will not always be around and there is nothing that should say they need a monopoly on use of firearms for self defence.  What if situations like Lupine or the Toronto shooting could have been avoided if the average citizen was more vigilant and prepared to defuse a situation with force?



Does anyone know the town in Texas that has been doing this for a while?


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Does anyone know the town in Texas that has been doing this for a while?



I don't know of the Texas town, but stories of an Arizona Sheriff have been making the rounds.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) is doing it RIGHT!! He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies. He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value. When the inmates complained, he told them.....this is a good one......"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back." He bought Newt Gingrich's lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place. You have to love this guy!!

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports:
About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts. On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks. "It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 1/2 years. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes... so shut your damned mouths."

See  http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/miracopjail.htm  .....which says that this internet story is true.

Perhaps we could populate Hans Island to defend against the encroachment of those nasty Danes   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2005)

Just want to slide back to the handgun ban being proposed by the lieberals. It won't make them go away (stating the obvious here). When they confiscate enough, and seal the borders, closeting us in, the thugs will adapt. In the 50's & 60's, there was a shortage of handguns on the street. Backyard garages supplied the societal dregs with sawed off rifles and shotguns, as well as "zip" guns. Manufactured handguns have only replaced, what was already happening. Banning handguns or long guns will not solve the problem. As long as the three ingredients for making black powder exist in cheap, unregulated quantities, people will find ways to employ the finished product.


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Dec 2005)

> give those who wish the appropriate level of training in use of force, shooting, proper carriage and handling, threat identification, etc, etc the right to carry



To get a CCW permit (concealed carry) this is the certification course that you have to take



The Following Subject Matter is Covered:
 Firearm Safety
 Range Qualifications
 Personal Protection
 Types of Handguns
 Ballistics
 Judgmental Shooting
 Mental Conditioning
 Arizona Firearm Laws
 Review New Case Laws
 Current Legislation
 Interfacing with Law Enforcement
 Use of Deadly Force
 Justification 

http://www.azccw.com/requirements.htm

Arizona (and some other States, I think) also have Sheriff's Posses, which are a tremendous help to the Departments:

http://co.pinal.az.us/Sheriff/Posse/


----------



## 3rd Herd (31 Dec 2005)

The sheriff from Arizona has been featured on 60 Minutes a couple of times as well as various US news. He must be doing something right as he keeps getting re-elected. Several states have brought back the chain gang approach but most use if for low risk/white collar crime. One judge sentences offenders to wear bill boards around his town. The ACLU went after him and lost. Serious offenders though-SUPERMAX and the difference between us and them is life means life, not this 2/3 sentence served. Look at Russia and to a certain extent China under communist rule, petty crime was almost none existent. I know of one Caribean protectorate which has a .0001 crime rate. The jail is run by Dutch Marines and from what I have been told there are no repeat offenders.


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Dec 2005)

I have met Sheriff Joe also...  My Dad ( a former jail warden) was a fan, and had read his book as well. I arranged for a meet on Dad's first visit to AZ, and a tour of Tent City also. The Sheriff spent an hor or so with us in his Office, and signed Dad's book, to. The Chain Gangs are strictly volunteers, and low-risk inmates.


----------



## Redeye (31 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Does anyone know the town in Texas that has been doing this for a while?



I presume you're referring to the City of Kennesaw, Georgia, which at least at one time had a law on the books requiring a firearm in every home.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jan 2006)

Let's get back on topic please.


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 2)  Slam the book, big time.  Gangs, petty crime, and youth violence will never go away - it is hardwired into man's competitive biology.  However, using a firearm in the commission of a crime should demand a big automatic sentence.  We'll see how tough gang-members in Toronto are when, upon being arrested, they are sent to a penal colony for 5 years for illegally possessing a firearm.



Totally agree with that point there, but I think that one of the biggest problem facing our criminal justice system is that there simply isn't anywhere to put these offenders. Not enough prisons, not enough innovative ways to house/detain these guys. Not enough judges to sentence, not enough cops on the streets (although over the next few years T.O. is hoping to solve the latter).

That's why thugs are given conditional/suspended sentences, that's why inmates are being parolled before they're ready, and that's why cops are letting these guys go without charges. 

As it stands right now, we don't have the resources to get tough on crime.


----------



## Craig B (9 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> but I think that one of the biggest problem facing our criminal justice system is that there simply isn't anywhere to put these offenders. Not enough prisons, not enough innovative ways to house/detain these guys.



Lots of nasty places in Canada to house inmates.

For example, Hans Island. No guards needed, no fences/walls needed . Just have some food parachute dropped by a "sovereignty patrol " aircraft every month or so.  ;D

If that's too cold , I'm sure the French would lease us Devil's Island for $1 per year , all we'd have to do is charter a real rust bucket tramp freighter to haul the scum down there. The jungle would do the rest  

Craig


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

"As it stands right now, we don't have the resources to get tough on crime."

- Balls.  Take the billions wasted on HRDC, ADSCAM, Gun registry, hidden foundation spending , etc, and build some new prisons.

Tom


----------



## Gobsmacked (10 Jan 2006)

Just wanted everyone to remember *Paul Martin's 'Crystal Clear' assertion* from tonights English Language debate:
_"*Every handgun in the hands of some 500,000 collectors across Canada is just a 'Break-in' away from being used in a crime.*"_     

I suppose by the same wonderful leap-of-logic that next they will want to Disarm the Police/RCMP and Military as 'each weapon in an armoury or the trunk of a Police Cruiser' is just a break-in away from being used in a crime'.
      

Fer petes sake, many legitimate collectors have better security on their weapons collections [rebar-reinforced cemented rooms with steel doors and key/security code opening, plus alarmed security systems] than exist in many armouries or Police stations.  Let alone how easy it potentially is to pop the trunk on a Police cruiser and grab a stored shotgun.   :brickwall:

Know it all Fiberals  :tsktsk:


----------



## Dare (10 Jan 2006)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> Just wanted everyone to remember *Paul Martin's 'Crystal Clear' assertion* from tonights English Language debate:
> _"*Every handgun in the hands of some 500,000 collectors across Canada is just a 'Break-in' away from being used in a crime.*"_


Indeed, but so is every home computer/diamond ring/plasma screen tv/kg of drugs stolen and/or sold/traded for a handgun. Many guns are illegally smugged passed our disarmed boarder patrol. I'm not sure which is more absurd, expecting unarmed folks to disarm gunrunners, or expecting criminals not to take Paul Martin's advice.


> I suppose by the same wonderful leap-of-logic that next they will want to Disarm the Police/RCMP and Military as 'each weapon in an armoury or the trunk of a Police Cruiser' is just a break-in away from being used in a crime'.


I would like to remind people of this very very important point. The example being the UK. It's just the next step. I would especially appeal to my Liberal and NDP brothren to realize the dangers of heavily restricted centralized weaponry. Once the weapons are out of reach of the average law abiding citizen, don't be shocked when armed gangs begin to slowly converge on your neighbourhoods (as is already the case...)


> Fer petes sake, many legitimate collectors have better security on their weapons collections [rebar-reinforced cemented rooms with steel doors and key/security code opening, plus alarmed security systems] than exist in many armouries or Police stations.  Let alone how easy it potentially is to pop the trunk on a Police cruiser and grab a stored shotgun.   :brickwall:
> 
> Know it all Fiberals  :tsktsk:


My local police station has some regular keylock drawers akin to safety deposit boxes for their gun storage. It's a dozen meters into the station guarded by a few security cameras and the illusion of invulnerability. Fortunately, I also know enough of them have their own personal guns, several calibers larger, if need be.


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> Fer petes sake, many legitimate collectors have better security on their weapons collectins [rebar-reinforced cemented rooms with steel doors and key/security code opening, plus alarmed security systems] than exist in many armouries or Police stations.



Too bad this guy didn't have all that. 

:shrug:


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "As it stands right now, we don't have the resources to get tough on crime."
> 
> - Balls.  Take the billions wasted on HRDC, ADSCAM, Gun registry, hidden foundation spending , etc, and build some new prisons.
> 
> Tom



What, and curb wasteful government spending?? That sounds highly unlikely. 

I repeat my above statement.


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> He had a safe that the gov't determined was good enough. Given enough time and determination, nothing will stop a thief.



Well, that's up for debate. It's his word against Toronto Police, who have issued a warrant for his arrest for storing and importing the firearms "improperly".


----------



## Bobbyoreo (10 Jan 2006)

Just wondering how he stored it. As I only have a Steal lock box bolted to my floor. Do you need more?


----------



## 3rd Herd (10 Jan 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> Just wondering how he stored it. As I only have a Steal lock box bolted to my floor. Do you need more?



Gun safes are the in thing in BC in combination with trigger guard locks and bolts removed being stored in a separate locked box. You know what they say about an "ounce of prevention..............." Several instances of 'negligent" owners being charged after crimes committed using a gun the was stolen in a b+e. Most notable of this instances have been where the guns have found around/on school property. We had a case several years back in this province with the "bushman of the shuswap". Armed himself with firearms taken from vacation cabins.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Well, that's up for debate. It's his word against Toronto Police, who have issued a warrant for his arrest for storing and importing the firearms "improperly".



I thought this was covered in the guns and gangs thread, however midgetcop if you had actually READ that article you would have  seen a picture of the damage done to his *1700lb* CONCRETE AND STEEL SAFE, and that it took TWO days for the theives to bust into it.  It even mentions that TPS had INSPECTED and APPROVED  of the set-up.  So IMHO its not up for debate, the guy had his guns stored properly, they (TPS) need to charge someone, and he just happens to be an easy target.  The theives in question just happened to be incredibly determined to get into the safe.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

"Just wondering how he stored it. As I only have a Steal lock box bolted to my floor. Do you need more?"

If you in fact own firearms AND a computer, you have NO excuse - BLOODY NONE - for not looking up your storage and transport requirements on the justice website:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/SOR-98-209/index.html

So:

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS


5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.


(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.


(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting."

Notice that that is 'storage'.  If you are cleaning it, dry firing it, or just plain studying it (looking at it) it is in 'use'.  A firearm in use does not have to meet storage requirements - BUT, you cannot pull 28 guns out of your room/locker/closet/safe, take the locks off/put the bolts in and lay them on your floor, you must be in control of any firearms that are not stored.  

Police will always lay charges against the owner as a matter of political policy.  One owner was charged after a B&E crew left his guns on the floor of his house after giving up on trying to pry the trigger locke off.  Once the judge found out that the doors to his house were locked before the B&E, he threw out the careless storage charges.

If ytou are charged, go thriough the NFA or CSSA to find a lawyer familiar with fighting and winning firearms cases.  The vast majority of these cases are winnable.

But, having said that, it is best to obey the storage and transport regulations to the letter.  It will make your lawyers job much easier.

Tom


----------



## Bobbyoreo (10 Jan 2006)

I do have all that trigger lock and everything, just was interested if maybe there was something new. That and I wanted to know if the weapon in case was not locked up or did they break into his safe, and in that case how can they charge him. Thats all...sorry if I made it look as I never looked anything up there big guy!!!

 :threat:


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I thought this was covered in the guns and gangs thread, however midgetcop if you had actually READ that article you would have  seen a picture of the damage done to his *1700lb* CONCRETE AND STEEL SAFE, and that it took TWO days for the theives to bust into it.  It even mentions that TPS had INSPECTED and APPROVED  of the set-up.  So IMHO its not up for debate, the guy had his guns stored properly, they (TPS) need to charge someone, and he just happens to be an easy target.  The theives in question just happened to be incredibly determined to get into the safe.



Of course I read the article. Did you??

You'd notice in this direct quote from the article:



> *He said* he had a permit issued by federal firearms officials and the permit was displayed beside the safe.


 (bold mine)

I'm not saying that this guy will get convicted. I'm not even sure what the specific charges are. I'm just saying that whether he's telling the truth is up for debate.


----------



## 48Highlander (10 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> You'd notice in this direct quote from the article:
> (bold mine)
> 
> I'm not saying that this guy will get convicted. I'm not even sure what the specific charges are. I'm just saying that whether he's telling the truth is up for debate.



So you're saying he went through the trouble of buying and installing a 1700lb safe....but he decided not to get a permit.

I dunno, doesn't seem very logical to me.


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> As much as I support all police services, my sense (and thats all that is) is that this warrent is politically motivated (lets go after gun owners so we have a legit excuse to disarm them) and not the decision of the TPS.



Could be. We probably won't find out either, because it doesn't sound like buddy's coming back across the border any time soon.


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So you're saying he went through the trouble of buying and installing a 1700lb safe....but he decided not to get a permit.
> 
> I dunno, doesn't seem very logical to me.



Listen, I'm not saying that he DID or DIDN'T have a permit. My point (and my original point all along, and I think I've been quite clear) is that WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. 

PLEASE READ POSTS CAREFULLY BEFORE POSTING A REFLEX-RESPONSE. 


Personally, the only real problem I have with this guy is that he decided to store a small arsenal in an apartment that he didn't use. With no one living there, it doesn't really matter what kind of safe buddy is using, if someone is determined enough to bust into it they'll have all the time in the world to get to it.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

Some interesting technical aspects to this.  Even if the physical aspects of the storage were by the letter of the law, the documentation must be current as well.  Note that there are differing regulations regarding individuals and businesses, as well as different requirements for non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms - including place of storage.  

"The Firearms Act is no more complicated than the Income Tax Act"  - Former Leeds-Genville MP.

"Personally, the only real problem I have with this guy is that he decided to store a small arsenal in an apartment that he didn't use. With no one living there, it doesn't really matter what kind of safe buddy is using, if someone is determined enough to bust into it they'll have all the time in the world to get to it."

As an individual, this pushes the envelope if he or someone else did not actually live there - I doubt he could claim "Seasonal Residence"  ;D

BUT, On the other hand, if this was a storage site for firearms used IAW his business license, other aspects apply.  

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jan 2006)

Personally, the only problem I have is with people who elect to commit crimes, regardless how easy an opportunity an innocent person presents.


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Personally, the only problem I have is with people who elect to commit crimes, regardless how easy an opportunity an innocent person presents.



Blaming criminals is a moot point that (I thought) goes without saying. 

But gun owners that present an 'easy opportunity' or not usually innocent, but wind up getting charged with a firearms offense. 

With gun ownership comes rules, regulations and responsibility. I don't see the problem with that.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

Me neither, but let's do it fair across the board.  If someone steals a car and uses it to commit a crime - let's charge the car owner.

Tom


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Me neither, but let's do it fair across the board.  If someone steals a car and uses it to commit a crime - let's charge the car owner.
> 
> Tom



That analogy would work if I were advocating charging the gun owner with the later crime committed (and I'm not). 

I'm merely supporting the current laws we already have concerning responsible ownership for any firearm. I've never heard of any gun owner in Canada who has been charged with first/second-degree murder because their gun had been stolen. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

That wasn't my point - but I should have been clearer.  If someone is killed in the commision of a crime with a stolen gun and a stolen car, the car owner is considered a victim - the gun owner is almost considered an accessory.

Let's focus on the pukes who commit the crimes.

I know this will limit the number of pukes in circulation, and they are - after all - the grease that keeps the legal industry turning and the lawyers in their hookers and SUVs, but, lets just try locking them up until they are done.

For once.

I mean, what do we have to do to lock them up?  Catch them selling wheat to the USA?

Tom


----------



## dutchie (11 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> That analogy would work if I were advocating charging the gun owner with the later crime committed (and I'm not).


TCBF - you beat me to it. But since I had this ready to post, here is my $0.02:

I think the point, which appears to have been slightly missed by you (midgetcop), is that the criminal who uses the gun in a crime is the SOLE PERSON responsible for the crime. The fact that he had to steal his tools to ply his trade only adds to HIS rap sheet, it does not create a criminal offence in the secondary victim (gun owner). 

Improperly storing your firearms is a completely seperate issue, and is a total red herring when discussing cupability surrounding a violent crime.


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> TCBF - you beat me to it. But since I had this ready to post, here is my $0.02:
> 
> I think the point, which appears to have been slightly missed by you (midgetcop), is that the criminal who uses the gun in a crime is the SOLE PERSON responsible for the crime. The fact that he had to steal his tools to ply his trade only adds to HIS rap sheet, it does not create a criminal offence in the secondary victim (gun owner).
> 
> Improperly storing your firearms is a completely seperate issue, and is a total red herring when discussing cupability surrounding a violent crime.



Jesus H. Christ, do you guys even read what I type??

I never said that the gun owner was partly responsible for the later crime. Never once. You even *quoted* me saying the exact opposite.  :

And I understand that improperly storing firearms is a separate issue. Coincedentally, it was *the* issue that we were discussing before getting sidetracked here.


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> That wasn't my point - but I should have been clearer.  If someone is killed in the commision of a crime with a stolen gun and a stolen car, the car owner is considered a victim - the gun owner is almost considered an accessory.



As I said before, I've never heard of a gun owner being charged as an accessory. I've heard of them being charged with firearm offences (i.e. storage). Please feel free to present any examples if I am wrong. 



> Let's focus on the pukes who commit the crimes.
> 
> I know this will limit the number of pukes in circulation, and they are - after all - the grease that keeps the legal industry turning and the lawyers in their hookers and SUVs, but, lets just try locking them up until they are done.
> 
> ...



I wholeheartedly agree. But only point being that we can't absolve gun owners from any kind of care and responsibility. I think that people have been taking that out of context, as if I were trying to imply that a gun owner is legally "responsible" for a crime commited with a stolen weapon. No, I don't mean that. I mean hold them accountable under the current laws we have concerning safety, storage, etc.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

I agree completely.  Responsibility and accountability are cornerstones of the Recreational Firearms Community.  

It is the Demonization by the politicians and community 'activists' (many of whom are anti-cop as well) that goads us.

Stay safe.

Tom


----------



## dutchie (11 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Listen, I'm not saying that he DID or DIDN'T have a permit. My point (and my original point all along, and I think I've been quite clear) is that WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.
> 
> PLEASE READ POSTS CAREFULLY BEFORE POSTING A REFLEX-RESPONSE.
> 
> ...



& 



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> Blaming criminals is a moot point that (I thought) goes without saying.
> 
> But gun owners that present an 'easy opportunity' or not usually innocent, but wind up getting charged with a firearms offense.
> 
> With gun ownership comes rules, regulations and responsibility. I don't see the problem with that.



No one is arguing FOR irresponsible gun ownership, so I can only assume that these 2 posts of yours were intended to show that the gun owner is somehow partly responsible. If your saying that the theft had absolutely NOTHING to do with the end crime, then fine, I'll accept that. But by bringing up the issue of responsible gun ownership in a topic about violent gun crime, it leaves the impression that you assign some blame to the gun owner. I do not - he is a victim of theft, nothing more.


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

Caesar said:
			
		

> &
> 
> No one is arguing FOR irresponsible gun ownership, so I can only assume that these 2 posts of yours were intended to show that the gun owner is somehow partly responsible. If your saying that the theft had absolutely NOTHING to do with the end crime, then fine, I'll accept that. But by bringing up the issue of responsible gun ownership in a topic about violent gun crime, it leaves the impression that you assign some blame to the gun owner. I do not - he is a victim of theft, nothing more.



No, I've said now multiple times that the theft has nothing to do with further crimes, other than that the owner may possibly face charges in relationship to the storage of said firearms. I brought up the Toronto Star article in response to someone else's comments on safe storage, and then it seemed to offshoot from there because some posters have assumed that I was taking a position that I wasn't. 

Nothing I have said has blamed gun owners for anything other than their storage techniques/handling. Nothing I have said has connected gun owners to violent crime. Look at the very quotes you bolded in red.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jan 2006)

...and just like the other gun threads, thats a wrap.

Between the 100's of pages on gun control, etc. every viewpoint possible has been brought up so therefore we are now just wasting our time and energy trying to keep things civil.....and I don't like wasting my time.
Thank you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jan 2006)

Was asked via PM to post this link which the user says has some relevance, I have not looked at it yet but here we go.....
Quote,
After the thread was locked, I discovered this piece in the NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy200601120827.asp

What I found interesting (and might have added to the debate) is the real life observation that the crime and murder rate in Texas declined after carry permits were re introduced in 1996.


----------

