Gun Control in Canada

[Blackleaf]

And, if I remember correctly, Great Britain reports murder rates differently than most nations......it is not murder until someone is convicted? I am not sure of my ground here, so......

Surely it's the same in Canada and the US and other Anglo-Saxon antions, but you still have far higher rates of murder than we do.

In Britain and Canada and the US - thanks to the magnificent English Common Law - you are INNOCENT until proven guilty (although, thanks to the EUSSR, Britain may no longer have English Common Law by the end of this month. Around 22nd September, we might have to adopt the tyrranical Napoleonic French law model that the Continental European nations use, where you are guilty until proven innocent, where you have no trial by jury and where you have no habeas corpus).

I think the reason for a low murder rate compared to most other countries is because we just don't have a tendency to go around and kill our fellow citizens. But, though, our violent crime rate is higher than it is in most other countries, which shows that we like to beat people up and maim them but we just don't kill them.

 

[Curiosity]

Ya but

Aren't the Brits perfect?

I mean who could measure up to them - gun laws or anything else they do - they even have a queen who probably has her very own gun too.

 

[butr_cup]

I don't have any guns, nor am I interested in owning any. But many of my friends and family do own guns.

In theory gun control sounds like a great idea, however the gun registration implemented by the Cdn Government in the 90s is a complete farce, it was nothing but a cash grab.

Do any of you honestly believe that criminals would register their guns? If I were involved in illegal activities and participating in these activities brought on a need for a gun (robbing a bank, murder, etc...) I certainly wouldn't register my guns, nor would I purchase them at the local firearms distributor. I would get my gun(s) the same way most other criminals do.

 

[sanch]

3 of the alleged Mississauga terrorists were arrested trying to import weapons into Canada from the US. Obviously there are significant enough controls in Canada to prevent some individuals from gaining access to weapons. From this example increasing gun controls and significantly limiting ownership would protect the country from terrorist attacks. This would be a very good reason to begin a program to tightly regulate all guns. Just because the gun registry to some did not work is no reason not to look for other solutions.

 

[Colpy]

3 of the alleged Mississauga terrorists were arrested trying to import weapons into Canada from the US. Obviously there are significant enough controls in Canada to prevent some individuals from gaining access to weapons. From this example increasing gun controls and significantly limiting ownership would protect the country from terrorist attacks. This would be a very good reason to begin a program to tightly regulate all guns. Just because the gun registry to some did not work is no reason not to look for other solutions.

The fact that the terrorist hopefuls in Canada felt they had to go to the USA to get guns simply shows how completely incompetent they were.

Ah, EXCUSE ME????????

Have you been paying attention?

Canada ALREADY has very strict gun control, including the registration system, which has proven absolutely useless in preventing attacks of the Dawson College type............

Exactly what "other solutions" do you have in mind?

 

[sanch]

Colpy you really have a bias on this issue. All you want to do is raise arguments to keep your 20 or so guns.

The solution would be guns for the police and military and some allowance for subsistance hunting. That would be it.

The border will soon be more secure and then it will be a good opportunity to impose stricter controls in Canada.

Dawson College should be a lesson that Canada needs better gun controls. The argument that the current controls do not work and so lets not have any lacks common sense.

I added the last paragraph

 

[Colpy]

Sanch wrote

Colpy you really have a bias on this issue. All you want to do is raise arguments to keep your 20 or so guns.

Partly true.....I'm damned tired of being asked to pay for the actions of some lunatic............

The solution would be guns for the police and military and some allowance for subsistance hunting. That would be it.

This is NO solution at all, and is EXACTLY the reason at least one third of the firearms in Canada have NOT been registered. We don't trust the government, and an armed population is the absolute cornerstone of a free society. BTW, that one third unregistered is MILLIONS of guns........you simply can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals anywhere in the world.....all gun control does is disarms the victims.

AND, I would stand on a street corner and hand out my guns to complete strangers before I turned them in to the government.

The border will soon be more secure and then it will be a good opportunity to impose stricter controls in Canada.

Good luck with that. Come talk to me as soon as you stop the flow of illegal drugs into Canada, then I might be convinced you can stop the flow of guns.........

Dawson College should be a lesson that Canada needs better gun controls. The argument that the current controls do not work and so lets not have any lacks common sense.

NOBODY wants no control, that is a red herring. BUT the acts at Dawson college show registration is useless, you can't very well logically argue it helped in this case.

Canada has millions of folks that consider the private ownership of arms to be their right. What we need is a framework of law that tries to restrict guns from falling into the wrong hands, yet allows ownership and use by citizens qualified and responsible.

No law can be completely foolproof.

 

[Curiosity]

Colpy you wrote...

No law can be completely foolproof.

Exactly - and you can't legislate emotions or mental illness or the chance a gun is overlooked in a family home until it is used by a kid on crack ...
Guns are the implements of the person who could misuse them to do harm to others. That's where the law needs to pull up its socks and stop being so darn politically correct - letting the events happen and then discussing more legislation.

Nothing is perfect. Certainly rage isn't.

The case we were discussing of Gill and the Dawson school however is a lesson perhaps in need of learning....

There were plenty of warning signs of his decompensation and nobody said or did a thing.

Looking at his website surely there was one person there with a reasonably sound mind who alerted to the fact the guy wasn't cool at all but a sick mind looking for a reason to act on his rage....

About the terrorists who sneak across the 49th with weaponry - they are the ones who will be caught - because that is what the security people are watching out for - not some odd goth type of 25 years who runs a dodo bird website.

Or I repeat:
Does anybody out there really care? When someone is crying for help?

 

[sanch]

This is NO solution at all, and is EXACTLY the reason at least one third of the firearms in Canada have NOT been registered. We don't trust the government, and an armed population is the absolute cornerstone of a free society. BTW, that one third unregistered is MILLIONS of guns........you simply can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals anywhere in the world.....all gun control does is disarms the victims.

I am not reassured by anything in this statement. First you do recognize that your political philosophy applies to Afghanistan prior to the US invasion. This is a very tribal and archaic view of government and is no justification for allowing people to run around with guns.

You don't trust the government and so you need to be armed. I can imagine this response in south Lebanon when people are told they need to trust the national government and give up their arms.

With all the sexual simulators and video games people can get their jollies in other ways beside shooting guns.

Canada would be a safer and more secure place with less guns.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

What is is about North Americans and guns? Countries like Britain have had guns and cannons for hundreds of years, before Canada and the US were even born, and we aren't as obsessed with guns as you are.

I've often wondered about this...

 

[Zzarchov]

Thats funny blackleaf..wasn't their a psychopath the other day who shot some kid in Britain just the hell of it? Kid was named Jessie James ironically enough, just 15 years old.

I hate to break it to you, but Banning guns to cut down on Gun related abuse is just as effective as banning alcohol was to crack down on alcohol related abuse.

It simply doesn't work.

Im all for gun regulation, but every voting eligable citizen without any mental disorders and a clean criminal record had best be able to buy as many guns as he wishes.

If you aren't responsible enough to be trusted with a gun, you aren't responsible enough to vote on whether or not other people can be trusted with a gun.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

I hate to break it to you, but Banning guns to cut down on Gun related abuse is just as effective as banning alcohol was to crack down on alcohol related abuse.

It simply doesn't work.

How can we say that for sure when their rates of crimes with firearms HAVE decreased since the ban? I don't understand how people can post these things with such certainty.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

I hate to break it to you, but Banning guns to cut down on Gun related abuse is just as effective as banning alcohol was to crack down on alcohol related abuse.

It simply doesn't work.

How can we say that for sure when their rates of crimes with firearms HAVE decreased since the ban? I don't understand how people can post these things with such certainty.

WHAT ban?

If you mean the registration law, you are correct, but the rate of crime with firearms has shown a downward trend for a couple of decades, long before that law was brought in.

The question is, are draconian laws that are the antitheses of our tradition of liberty in this country, and that cost VAST amounts of money worth the very small improvement, which may or may not be the result of those laws?

"Anyone who would surrender their liberty for a little safety deserves neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Yeah, and that is a VERY valid point for a gun registry, Wednesday. It should be that you cant register your gun without having passed a firearms course that teaches the dangers of guns, proper storage, etc. Just as you have to pass a drivers test to use the killing machine, the car, or a boaters test to have a boat license.

 

[Colpy]

I am not reassured by anything in this statement. First you do recognize that your political philosophy applies to Afghanistan prior to the US invasion. This is a very tribal and archaic view of government and is no justification for allowing people to run around with guns.

Since when did I need a "justification" to run arouind with guns, or do anything else? It is supposed to be a free country, therefore I can do anything I damn well please, unless the government can duly show a "justification" to restrict my liberty. That they can not do on the subject of increased gun control.

That is the crux of the argument.

You don't trust the government and so you need to be armed. I can imagine this response in south Lebanon when people are told they need to trust the national government and give up their arms.

You should read John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, William Blackstone, James Madison, et al.

With all the sexual simulators and video games people can get their jollies in other ways beside shooting guns.

Yadda yadda yadda. Sigh

Canada would be a safer and more secure place with less guns

Maybe. But you can't have freedom without risk. Canada would be safer without cigarettes, swimming pools, bicycles, cars, sharp objects, golf clubs, skis, large rocks, 2x4s, baseball bats, and a unimaginable list of other items, a lot of which kill and injure more people than guns.

The required cost, both in liberty and in dollars, simply does not justify additional gun control.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

Yeah, and that is a VERY valid point for a gun registry, Wednesday. It should be that you cant register your gun without having passed a firearms course that teaches the dangers of guns, proper storage, etc. Just as you have to pass a drivers test to use the killing machine, the car, or a boaters test to have a boat license.

Ah, EXCUSE ME!!

Have you been reading this?

There is a very comprehensive safety course required before one can purchase a long gun in this country, and another before one can purchase a restricted weapon (handgun, et al)

That, I don't have a problem with. I believe there should be training before one can get a Possession and Acquisition license.

I would throw out abot 80% of Canada's gun laws, but this one is good, and should be kept.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

What is is about North Americans and guns? Countries like Britain have had guns and cannons for hundreds of years, before Canada and the US were even born, and we aren't as obsessed with guns as you are.

In 1996, a man when into a school in Dunblane, Scotland - with pupils aged just 8 and 9 - and shot dead several of the children in a classroom, killed the teacher and then killed himself. In that same year, handguns were made illegal and anyone owning handguns had to hand them all in. Since then, there have been no-one bursting into a school and shooting dead the pupils.

In North America, things like Dunblane happen every year - like Columbine in 1999 - but STILL there are no tighter controls on guns.

Thank you, Blackleaf for pointing out this vital message. Guns kill and societies that allow guns get more deaths from them.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

I hate to break it to you, but Banning guns to cut down on Gun related abuse is just as effective as banning alcohol was to crack down on alcohol related abuse.

It simply doesn't work.

How can we say that for sure when their rates of crimes with firearms HAVE decreased since the ban? I don't understand how people can post these things with such certainty.

WHAT ban?
.

I'm talking about Britain, not Canada.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Boy, the gun lovers sure do fight having their guns registered! Why? The registry still allows you to have your guns for hunting. Sure, we might ask that you give up those 0.380 semiautomatic weapons, let alone those hyperkilling belt fed 0.30 machine guns, but I'm sure you can kill those little rabbits without them.

We may of course want to check your criminal record, and I guess for those of you who have been involved in prior drug related gang deaths, we MIGHT be somewhat more reticent to give you a license.

We of course will expect you to take a course on firearm safety, but as you all are such experts, I am sure you will pass our little exam with 90%!!! , which is our passing grade.

We will of course, also charge you $50 per gun. Now, for those of you who have upwards of ten or more guns, we MIGHT consider a family rate. Or, you could decide just how many guns are really necessary for your peaceful lifestyle.

We will of course, hold you responsible for the weapon, and just as you lose your car license if you drive dangerously, then we may have to take away your gun license if by chance a child gets hold of it and kills themself. Or, if you repeatedly are responsible for those hunting accidents mistaking your buddy for a frisky deer instead of a potbellied beer guzzler, then we may have to consider revoking your right to own a gun.
Luckily in Canada, we dont have to consider the Second Amendment.

Oh, and just as your doctor has to report to us if you are not fit to drive a car ( eg if you cant see or if you are prone to seizures, etc), your doctor will be legally obliged to report to us if there is a reason you should not own a gun. We have noticed that there seems to be a correlation with depression and death by gun, so we may consider that a person with a history of depression (gee-- let's say like the Dawson shooter) will not be allowed to own a gun. Call it infringing on your rights, but we have decided that blind people cant drive a car, and so this is not really much more of an infringement.

Now, while I personally would like to ban all guns, I realize that there are some gun owners who use guns responsibly for activities that they feel are legitimate. But all the government is asking is that we have some control over the type of gun, how many guns, and who has the guns. Why should we expect less of gun control than we do of car control? A car is a far more necessary item in society.

Basically, the ownership of guns is not a right. It is a privilege that should be earned and recorded and revoked if misused.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

I hate to break it to you, but Banning guns to cut down on Gun related abuse is just as effective as banning alcohol was to crack down on alcohol related abuse.

It simply doesn't work.

How can we say that for sure when their rates of crimes with firearms HAVE decreased since the ban? I don't understand how people can post these things with such certainty.

WHAT ban?
.

I'm talking about Britain, not Canada.

Oh, you will be interested in this then......from BBC News

Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban



Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.



Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place

David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Smuggling

The campaign's director, David Bredin, said: "It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Now, it was posted here that gun crime was down in Britain over the last couple of years.....but it is still quite a bit higher than it was BEFORE the ban.