Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work

[Jersay]

Now money might have been blown on the Gun Registry and other programs that neo-conservative gun lovers love to hate but even with 52 gun-murders this year in Toronto in 2004, because of legislation there was:



When contrasted against a decade's worth of statistics on gun murders nationwide, Toronto's peak appears to be an aberration. There were 271 homicides committed across the country with a firearm 15 years ago. In 2004, there were 172.

The drop in homicides comes a decade after Canada passed laws that required gun owners to be licensed and registered.

See link at bottom

So even though they are expensive they work!

 

[Kanadatrapped]

Re: Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work (NOT)

To Jersay

I think your firearms death source is questionable where it is not referenced in the article as to source. Such articles are easily manipulated to suit the personal beliefs of the authors, I believe. You might further research it to prove me wrong. However, I don't think you can. Toronto police chief picks a number out of the air about firearms numbers and it becomes food for the anti-gun coalition and fools like Paul Martin.

After casual monitoring of the news releases and the areas where they are released it is apparent that Martin is using slimy tactics to appeal to the issues of small groups.

One of those that bothers me most is the proposed handgun ban. (Aren't they already banned unless you have special permission?) This further ban will really shakeup the thugs, who will probably vote Liberal if Martin is going to remove firearms from the homes they will now invade with impunity...Even the inmates will be voting for him, to reduce the risk of job related injury ( getting shot during a home invasion?) upon release.

It's terrible that the streets of Toronto have come to shootouts. But we should also remember that none of the guns being used are being used by the registered and lawful owners (if there were any), who had to take at least two safety courses (Basic Firearms Safety and Restricted firearm safety courses).

Some handgun owners take an even more detailed 2 day safety course known as Black Badge for I.P.S.C. (International Practical Shooting Confederation). This positive firearms activity ensures that safety is the primary consideration, where to even unholster a firearm unless at a safety area or on the firing line is to result in a disqualification for the match.

I'm amused at the thought of closing down the collectors because stolen guns could fall into the hands of criminals.....dah! It would have been a criminal that steals them...but now Martin wants to steal them....seems to fit.

Politics in the Martin camp has stooped to the Machiavellism which is described as follows, followed by the reference link:

"Lago demonstrates that the name of Machiavellism
could be affixed to any kind of evilness as long as it
was evilness on a grand scale. The Machiavellian
looked only after his own interests and desires and was
willing to lie and to deceive, to use crooked means,
in order to obtain them. He concealed his true inten-
tions and masked them behind words of piety or good-
will. He liked to work in the dark and without others
knowing it he maneuvered them into doing his bidding."

* Taken from <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-79>

I actually found the foregoing after I had written the following to Liberal HQ and a spelling-corrected copy to a local paper. I have not seen it published but was called to confirm I sent it:

"The Liberals have stooped to the lowest level. A swoop into troubled Toronto with a hazy promise to end violent crime with a nation-wide handgun ban...how brave! How manipulative! You have preyed on the families of socially maladjusted, frustrated and fearful people, with a promise of delivering change. How pretentious! The fact that the Canadians have been lobbying for some time at the United Nations against private gun ownership also confirms the deceitful intent of the Liberal government.

Mr Martin, why didn't your government swoop in to this and other troubled neighborhoods years ago to address the social issues on which the current violence falls? That is the real issue, not guns. It seems the motocycle gangs in Montreal also used explosives to fight their batlles several years ago....but you have probably heard it all before, and choose to keep your head in the sand.

You might see yourself as the great social angel with a cure for all Canada, but you have merely deployed the strategy of a bottom-feeder, sucking for well intentioned votes, most of which will be given in exchange for your false offer of dreams for community peace and safety. "

In conclusion, Jersay, I'm tired of being the one required to carry an identity card(Firearms License), having to notify government of a change of address, being treated like a criminal for a crime I haven't committed and all because I have registered my firearms, obeying all the crappy laws intended to lead to confiscation of my personal property...property I have not misused. I thought you should know....Karla H, it's ok...you're lucky you aren't allowed to own firearms.

 

[Jersay]

50% of gun crimes are by registered guns that are stolen. Or so the police say.

And I understand, so there should be a registry, I think and safer restrictions on who shoot firearms.

But, also more policing of the illegal gun trade, and targetted survelliance of the big gangs in Toronto. They must be well known, and if you can take them down, most of the gang violence should be solved.

 

[the caracal kid]

i have never seen historically a ban on anything that worked.

what we see is sensationalism producing reactionary processes.

remember when nobody talked about bullying? then after enough cases became known, bullying began to be tackled proactively. we need the same mentality with guns. the media loves to play off the raw numbers of shootings for headlines, but per capita toronto is not the country's leader in gun violence deaths.

 

[I think not]

Jersay fix your link if you can

 

[Jersay]

The link works.?

 

[FiveParadox]

Proposed Handgun Ban

:!: Attention

Jersay, please convert the URL to the source you provided into a compact hyperlink; the URL, as it is, is forcing the boundaries of the page to expand beyond many computers' maximum standard resolution (mine is set to something above 1024 x 768, at the moment).

In case you were unaware how (which I doubt, you're a smart guy):

[url="Click here!"]http://www.canada.gc.ca/[/url]

:arrow: The Proposed Handgun Ban

In my opinion, the handgun ban proposed by the Right Honourable Paul Martin and the Government of Canada should be supported on the basis that it cannot possibly do any harm; if it serves to prevent even one person from committing a crime with a handgun, then the program will have been entirely worth it, in my opinion.

I would assert that handguns can serve no useful purpose to the general population of Canada. The most common use by far of handguns, in my opinion, is to commit questionable acts, or acts of overt violence — preserving the life of even one person is more than enough justification in my mind to ban the guns altogether, notwithstanding anyone who objects on the basis that they want the right to play "target practice."

 

[Jersay]

edited for link reasons.

 

[I think not]

Jersay

Use this if you're having trouble

http://tinyurl.com/

It's very easy to use.

 

[Jersay]

Thanks ITN,

http://tinyurl.com/ap8nh

it should work now.

 

[I think not]

Now just go up to your previous posts and get rid of the long links because they screw up the width.

And you're welcome.

 

[Colpy]

Re: Proposed Handgun Ban

:!: Attention

Jersay, please convert the URL to the source you provided into a compact hyperlink; the URL, as it is, is forcing the boundaries of the page to expand beyond many computers' maximum standard resolution (mine is set to something above 1024 x 768, at the moment).

In case you were unaware how (which I doubt, you're a smart guy):

[url="Click here!"]http://www.canada.gc.ca/[/url]

:arrow: The Proposed Handgun Ban

In my opinion, the handgun ban proposed by the Right Honourable Paul Martin and the Government of Canada should be supported on the basis that it cannot possibly do any harm; if it serves to prevent even one person from committing a crime with a handgun, then the program will have been entirely worth it, in my opinion.

I would assert that handguns can serve no useful purpose to the general population of Canada. The most common use by far of handguns, in my opinion, is to commit questionable acts, or acts of overt violence — preserving the life of even one person is more than enough justification in my mind to ban the guns altogether, notwithstanding anyone who objects on the basis that they want the right to play "target practice."

Geez, 5 pairs of physicians, I'm not picking on you, honestly.

But this makes me NUTS!

Freedom means risk. Without risk there can be no freedom.

"If it just saves one life....." could easily be used to ban sky diving, fast cars, ATVs, swimming pools, sharp objects, bungee jumping, unnecessary driving in ANY vehicle, alcohol, tobacco, sex, rock 'n roll, free speech, privacy, dogs, love, rope, ALL sports, peanut butter, shell fish, boats, snowmobiles, hiking, jogging, snow shoveling, crossing the street, or just getting out of bed in the morning.

See my point?

In fact, a number of those things I listed kill a HELL of a lot more people than handguns.

For instance, in 2004 handguns killed (NOT by themselves BTW) 112 people in Canada. Tobacco killed 35,000 or more, 3,500 of which were non-smokers.

I have no stats, but I bet alcohol killed 10 times what handguns did.

You should rethink this.

 

[Citizen]

My question is where in Canada are civilians permitted to own/carry handguns now?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work

My question is where in Canada are civilians permitted to own/carry handguns now?

Any citizen that has no criminal record and has passed a safe handling course can apply for a license to purchase a handgun. They must have a reason to own a handgun, target practise being the most common. If target practise is the reason, they must belong to a gun club.

There are VERY strict storage and transport rules for handguns, for instance, to take one to a range it must be trigger locked, locked in a box, unloaded and separate from the ammunition. The user must take the most direct route to the range, and home again They must be stored at home in containers (safes) designed or approved for gun storage.

Rarely, private citizens are given licenses to carry. There are only about 7000 of those issued in Canada, and the vast majority are held by armoured car guards (like myself). They can only carry while in uniform, and their guns are stored at work.

VERY rarely, a person working or trapping in remote areas can get a permit to carry for defense against animals.

There are about 1 million restricted weapons in the hands of private Canadian citizens.

I know lots and lots of people with legal handguns.

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work

Any citizen that has no criminal record and has passed a safe handling course can apply for a license to purchase a handgun. They must have a reason to own a handgun, target practise being the most common. If target practise is the reason, they must belong to a gun club.

There are VERY strict storage and transport rules for handguns, for instance, to take one to a range it must be trigger locked, locked in a box, unloaded and separate from the ammunition. The user must take the most direct route to the range, and home again They must be stored at home in containers (safes) designed or approved for gun storage.

Rarely, private citizens are given licenses to carry. There are only about 7000 of those issued in Canada, and the vast majority are held by armoured car guards (like myself). They can only carry while in uniform, and their guns are stored at work.

VERY rarely, a person working or trapping in remote areas can get a permit to carry for defense against animals.

There are about 1 million restricted weapons in the hands of private Canadian citizens.

I know lots and lots of people with legal handguns.

Well there's something learned today and the day's only 2-1/2 hours old. I had no idea that civilians in Canada could obtain handgun permits.

Thanks for that bit of information. The handgun ban being espoused during this election campaign seems like smoke and mirrors vote grabbing now since there are very few permits issued in the first instance.

 

[Hank C]

Re: RE: Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work

My question is where in Canada are civilians permitted to own/carry handguns now?

everywhere I believe, I don't think there are any areas do not allow ownership..... I owns many long guns and a few handguns which I use for hunting and occasionaly target shooting.

Well there's something learned today and the day's only 2-1/2 hours old. I had no idea that civilians in Canada could obtain handgun permits.

Thanks for that bit of information. The handgun ban being espoused during this election campaign seems like smoke and mirrors vote grabbing now since there are very few permits issued in the first instance.

yep there is alot of smoke around this....and the Liberals are trying to play the emotions against the gun violence and using it in their proposed handgun ban to gain votes. and yes there are very few concealed weapon permits, however the handgun ownership amongst Canadians is much more than that (sry don't have a numebr though).

..and Citizen I have to ask you which part of the country are you from, because it is interesting you diden't know citizens could own handguns...you live in a gun free area :wink:

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work

When contrasted against a decade's worth of statistics on gun murders nationwide, Toronto's peak appears to be an aberration. There were 271 homicides committed across the country with a firearm 15 years ago. In 2004, there were 172.

Jersay ... what a foolish piece of "statistical" information! Anyone not suffering knee-jerk liberal reaction would have noticed that, first of all, a decade is 10 years (picky picky) and second of all, there is such an insignificant increase in the numbers that whether it's 10, 15 or 5 years worth of "evidence", it's hardly impressive. Check the stats on car wreck fatalities or malpractice fatalities or even the number of folks dropping dead on the golf course. You'll find they've all increased. In many cases, much more dramatically. More people = more fatalities in every area. I'd say those numbers indicate that guns are less likely to cause problems than more likely!

i have never seen historically a ban on anything that worked.

what we see is sensationalism producing reactionary processes.

Amen. I agree absolutely, Caracal. Bans tend only to drive a thing underground, making it even more unmanageable for the law keepers. Case in point ... the prohibition. Sure didn't stop folks from imbibing but it definitely made a bunch of them rich! Hmmm ... wonder if someone stands to make any money on this lil handgun ban scheme?

I'd be interested in knowing how many deaths have occurred as a result of legally registered handguns as opposed to how many deaths occurred from illegal weapons. My bet is that the majority is from illegal weapons ... thus the handgun ban isn't really stopping the problem. It's not the registered ones that need watching and the unregistered ones will always be unwatchable. Exercise in futility and money spent that could be put to far better use (can you say medical care??).

"If it just saves one life....." could easily be used to ban sky diving, fast cars, ATVs, swimming pools, sharp objects, bungee jumping, unnecessary driving in ANY vehicle, alcohol, tobacco, sex, rock 'n roll, free speech, privacy, dogs, love, rope, ALL sports, peanut butter, shell fish, boats, snowmobiles, hiking, jogging, snow shoveling, crossing the street, or just getting out of bed in the morning.

:lol: I shouldn't laugh ... your comments carry a sad ring of truth. Thing is, Colpy, that many of those things have already been banned in various areas. You can't even send a peanut butter sandwich to school with your kid in some places since some other kid might be allergic. Certain breeds of dogs are being banned. Us smokers are being squeezed out of society one space at a time.

It was a huge victory for skydivers to get the rules around life insurance changed a few years back so that they could be covered, despite their proclivity for "dangerous" sports. (I used to indulge in the sport.) Seems like every small step forward is followed by huge leaps backward.

Makes me wonder how those of us born before 1960 even managed to survive. We had all kinds of crazy things ... no seat belts or bike helmets, guns, peanut butter everywhere, even lawn darts for gawd's sake! And no eye protectors in sight!

The idea of legislating what is "good for us" bugs me no end. It fills the government coffers in some cases, it empties it in others and either way the average person is the big loser. Does government really think we are too stupid to look after ourselves? That having loaded handguns accessible in the house to kids is the norm in this country? And why should I be penalized for the few idiots who don't use proper precaution with their guns, cars and food?

I am a lefty, till it comes to this kind of nonsense. It's one of the few areas I agree with the right wingers on. Unfortunately, I suspect it's just another devisive political ploy on their part. Politician use strategy ... there ain't that many "true believers" among them, imho. It's all about manipulating people. Divide and conquer.

 

[Triple_R]

I don't see a complete handgun ban as being benign, or very useful. Based on what Colpy said, it seems like many people simply use handguns for personal hobbies. I don't see the harm in that (though it's not a hobby of mine), and I think the government is over-stepping its bounds to try to make it illegal for people to engage in harmless personal hobbies.

The Gun Registry may, or may not, do some good, but I don't think it's worth the massive amount of cash that goes into it in any event. We Canadians are admirably peaceful people, by and large. We don't need a gun registry. Just my opinion.

 

[Cosmo]

Here's a little history on gun control ... biased, I admit, but true nonetheless:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1928, Germany established gun control.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.
From 1975 to1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives — because they were unable to defend their liberty — at approximately 56 million in the 20th century.

Let's hear it for gun control. Kind of a retroactive birth control method of the lowest order.

 

[FiveParadox]

Canada Not Fascist

Canada is not going to sink to the depths of those examples simply because gun control is established. Believe it or not, I think that we're better than that. I honestly doubt that there is ever going to be some sort of mass "extermination" upon the passage of whatever legislative measures would implement the ban.