Liberals want Handgun Ban

[TCBF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

>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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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