A Post Full Of Questions
The Liberals are promising to ban hand guns? Why? Is Martin is under some misguided impression that making something illegal is some how going to have any impact in the world on criminals? Does he think that Buggsie and Moe are really going to abandon their plan to rob the convenience store on the corner because they gun they were going to use is illegal? Does he think that those who sell or smuggle handguns are going to stop smuggling and selling handguns because they are banned? Are people who join gangs going to be deterred from doing so because they use illegal handguns?
Is there a point to this other than ‘Look at me, look at me, I’m doing something’?
“Is there a point to this other than ‘Look at me, look at me, I’m doing something’?”
Nope, not one. You know I am one who really deplores guns in our society. I won’t apologize for that. But this new policy is just plain stupid. It doesn’t deal with the issue of gang violence at any level. unfuckingbelieveable!
Sorry for the language, as you probably noticed from my last post, I am a little on edge today.
“Deploring” guns in “society” – what does that mean? No one should have them? Only cops or soldiers?
And if so, what happens when cops and soldiers go bad?
Do you deplore them because they kill? So can and do motor vehicles. Motorbikes are not really “necessary,” are they? So with the higher rates of death caused by motorcycle accidents, who should own them?
Deplore: 1. To feel or express strong disapproval of; condemn
Society: 1. The totality of social relationships among humans.
2. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
Does that clear it up for you? Just add the part about really disliking guns into the society part and that’s where I stand.
“No one should have them?”. Preferably, yes.
“Only cops or soldiers?” The latter yes, the former, some.
“Do you deplore them because they kill?”
We have had this discussion before, at length. I promise we won’t find much to agree on in this area.
If banning hand guns were the only component of the policy then it would be as silly as you’ve made out. It isn’t though.
The policy includes 75 additional officers to address importation, includes community initiatives to reduce the social drivers, it includes stiffer (doubling) of gun related crimes and includes $225 million for the RCMP to deal with organized crime and gangs.
So, yes, I’d say there is a point to it.
Whether it would ever see the light of day if they were elected is another question all together.
There’s a rabid animal in your neighbourhood. Still deplore the use of a gun?
You going to call 911, where there could be more than one hour response time, or deplore that a neighbour with a gun shoots the rabid animal?
And this is most certainly a realistic situation.
“Society: 1. The totality of social relationships among humans.”
I’d hazard a guess that your social relationships have very little in common with those that live in rural areas. Perhaps, when considering your “deplorement” of guns, you might want to live with some folks in a rural area where it’s almost guaranteed that police response times will be an hour.
Those are all important goals Kevin, they are also totally seperate from the issue of banning handguns – which is nothing more ‘Look at me, look at me, people have been shot, and I’m doing something’ election talk.
Handguns themselves are not the problem, banning them will have about the same effect on their use in crime as making zip guns illegal – none.
“There’s a rabid animal in your neighbourhood. Still deplore the use of a gun?”
regretably, yes.
“You going to call 911, where there could be more than one hour response time, or deplore that a neighbour with a gun shoots the rabid animal?”
Yes I would call 911 and no I would not deplore the neighbour. If he really feels the need to have a gun then so be it. I don’t want anything to do with them.
“I’d hazard a guess that your social relationships have very little in common with those that live in rural areas.”
Good guess. They do not.
“Perhaps, when considering your “deplorement†of guns, you might want to live with some folks in a rural area where it’s almost guaranteed that police response times will be an hour”
Yes I have considered that but I tend to feel a whole lot safer at the cottage for example than I do very often on the mean streets of Toronto. I really don’t see any need for them in either scenario.
But hey, you do. Fine. Some guys like to, and others rely on, hunting for food. It’s not my way of spending a pleasant afternoon but who I am to wreck your fun.
Just keep the things away from me. I want nothing to do with them and really wished that more people felt that way.
Maybe that will change someday, if we are invaded by Vikings but in the meantime I am quite satisfied with my position.
They are more than important goals, they are part of the policy package the Liberals announced. So, I think we agree that at least 75% of the handgun policy is good and will be effective.
Will banning handguns reduce violent crime? Yes, it will.
Will it directly address the Toronto shooting by gangs and thugs — probably only a little. However, since most deaths involving guns doesn’t occur at the hands of gang thugs but at the hands of relatives and spouses, it doesn’t have to do that to make a significant impact on the reduction of violent crime.
How Kevin? How will banning handguns keep them out of the hands of criminals and gangs? The type of people who use handguns for crime are not the sort of people who are going to care if they are banned or not. The type of people who smuggle handguns are not the sort of people who are going to care if they are banned or not.
Did you read the last paragraph?
Everyone seems to think that all violent crime with guns is perpetrated by hardened criminals or hopeless bangers.
In the case of murders committed with guns this isn’t true. A reasonable desriptions is here
As tempting as it is to make fun of the Liberal hand gun thingie, I say let’s get to the root causes of crime. Like, say, the failure of the Liberal government to offer sensible apprenticeship and postsecondary education assistance for young Canadians, who are disproportionately the victims of violence:
Conservative initiatives for the trades include:
*A Tools Tax Deduction for up to $500 spent on tools;
*A $1,000 Apprenticeship Incentive Grant for two years for apprentices in approved programs; and
*An Apprenticeship Job Creation Tax Credit of 10 per cent of an apprenticeship’s wages for two years to a maximum of $2,000.
Conservative initiatives for education include:
*A tax credit for students or their parents of up to $500 to help cover the costs of textbooks;
*Cooperation with the provinces to increase family income thresholds for student loan eligibility; and
*Exemption of the first $10,000 of student scholarship or bursary income from taxation.
“We will focus assistance directly on students and their parents,” Harper concluded.
Truly exceptional policy. Jolly good show, Stephen “Mr. Incrementalism” Harper!
KevinG, your logic leaves much to be desired, logically speaking.
First, in using suicide statistics, your argument is fallacious as suicide is not illegal. Attempting suicide is also not a crime. Suicide may be attempted or completed using a variety of tools – including guns. As well, you make no attempt to show how suicide should not be an option for an individual that wishes to end their life.
And then let’s take a look at your last paragraph on your site, but let’s use a logically consistent method of substitution to determine the “logic” of your statements:
“Banning knives might not make Toronto any safer for pedestrians. But it probably will save lives. And as far as I’m concerned, saving the lives of innocent people is a good reason to ban knives, even if gangsters will still have illegal knives.”
What we can see is that if this is true for handguns, and we know that banning knives won’t make Toronto safer. We know knives are used in murders, so it “probably” will save lives to ban knives. So, if saving lives of innocent people is a “good” thing, then you won’t have a problem with banning knives, would you? Even if gangsters have illegal knives?
And then there is this part, KevinG:
“and you are FAR more likely to kill a family member with your gun than to kill anyone else.”
First, speak for yourself. I’m no more likely to kill a family member with a gun than I am likely to kill a family member with a knife.
But regardless of that, you are ignoring the fact that historically, whether someone uses a gun or knife to murder someone, domestic murders outnumber murders of “collateral damage” – it is more likely a murderer killed someone they knew than simply randomly murdered someone.
What you need to prove is that in those cases, or future cases, that folks are less likely to murder if there are no guns around.
And here’s more food for thought for you – the connection between death and cigarrettes is at LEAST dozens of times higher than the connection between deaths and guns.
Automobile accidents also account for more deaths per year in Canada than guns do.
Ah yes Anonalogue, a great many of us pine for the crime free days Canada enjoyed under the Clark and Mulroney Conservative governments… why I remember my grand pappy telling us that under the Diefenbaker jails were completely unnecessary.
We’ve had a debate going on on my web site about banning certain breeds of dogs. We had an incident in a neighboring county where a woman, in her own front yard, was torn to pieces, literally, by 6 Rottweiler-Pit Bull mix breed dogs. Forget holding the owner accountable. He was an illegal alien and has fled back to Mexico. Read the entire story and put in your two pfennings if you want to. There Oughta Be a Law
Cait, I just read your blog post. First, there is a far greater relationship to whether a dog is sterilized or not than to breed type as far as attacks by dogs go.
Just because you have not heard of other breeds attacking humans doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
When I was a child, I was attacked by a part Collie part Shepherd dog. The dog did not have rabies.
I had a German Shepherd once that attacked a postal worker around the ankles when the postal worker entered my house uninvited. That wasn’t reported as the postal worker didn’t want to report the circumstances – and my dog attacked the worker around the ankles – where heavy boots were worn – there were no injuries.
For an interesting study on fatal dog attackes, See this PDF file. This study was on fatal dog attacks, and you’ll see a wide range of breeds. Sure, Rotties and Pit Bulls are at the top of the list – but indeed, were they pit bulls as in “Staffordshire Terriors,” or some cross breed?
Australian Shepherds have also been known to be vicious as well.
Again, too many folks try to use reason and logic, but they are merely appealing to emotion, instead of using all of their logical/reasoning abilities when forming an opinion, as KevinG has done in his post on banning hand guns.
Talking of personal experience, it might be interesting for some to know that species other than dogs can also show violent tendencies – even so called domesticated species.
When I was younger, I lived on a farm. When four years old, a rooster would attack me from time to time, knocking me over with it’s wings. It would run towards me out of the blue, without any KNOWN provactive activity on my part, and attack me.
That rooster ended up being Christmas dinner one year. I took the feet and tendons to school for show and tell.
We had a friend who was attacked by a big tom turkey. That’s no laughing matter, either, as toms can be as big as dogs. It scared the crap out of him.
And a friend of mine, while out walking in our neighborhood, was attacked by a duck (I’m not making this shit up). She tried to run, and fell, and she looked like she’d been in a bar fight and lost. She was really scraped up.
I do think that for certain breeds, there should be more specific regulation as to kenneling or fencing. But, then there’s the problem of enforcement. More work for overworked animal control officers. Yes, in all likelihood, any breed can turn vicious. I’ve seen some nasty Chihuahuas. But there are certain breeds that have stronger attack instinct. It’s no accident that most police dogs that do patrol or “people search” (as opposed to drug dogs) are breeds like dobies, German shepherds, or Malinois. Although I remember an area PD that had a Bouvier des Flandres, I think it was, large black curly coat dog, that was absolutely the greatest patrol dog I’ve ever seen. He was a real showman. Can’t remember his name now.
This is going to sound like a joke, but it isn’t. I have a friend who was killed by her rabbit.
She was diabetic, and using a patch. One day while she was cleaning the rabbit’s cage, the beast kicked off her patch…and she didn’t notice. By the time she began to experience symptoms and figured out what was wrong, she was collapsing. She died after a couple of days in hospital.
Weird, sad, but true.
Oh, that doesn’t sound funny at all. That’s scary.
But it’s hard to tell the story without thinking of the Monty Python Killer Rabbit sketch.
“It’s no accident that most police dogs that do patrol or “people search†(as opposed to drug dogs) are breeds like dobies, German shepherds, or Malinois.”
Perhaps. HOWEVER, I had a very close friend of mine who was a dog trainer on the London Police Force in England. When he came to Canada, he had disgust for the way in which Shepherds were “trained” here in North America, when being trained for Police Dogs.
His own trained police dog, a Shepherd, he had NO problem letting children pet it, play with it, admire it, or whatever. The dog would ONLY attack when it was COMMANDED to attack.
This then begs the question – is it truly species related? Perhaps a big Shepherd poses more of a risk to a criminal trying to get away than a Chihuahua would – but is that perhaps simply because of the difference in size and strength?
I’ve known a few staffordshire terroriers that I would have no problems letting my three year old son hang out – but they are well trained dogs, with responsible owners.
And really, this gets us back to the original point of this thread – gun’s DO NOT KILL. They are inanimate objects. It is only through the use by a human that they kill. An inanimate object (and even animate objects like pets) do not act on their own “free will.”
Banning inanimate objects instead of expecting responsibility for behaviour is insane thinking.
Interestingly, England had virtually NO gun control laws in the 19th century – a period when anyone could carry a gun (EXCEPT the police), and when hard drugs such as Opium were uncontrolled.
From what they say, England was a much more “polite” society back in those days, and individual freedom was a strong value.
If you are seriously interested in hearing a speech about this, and are willing to listen to a different sort of opinion than what is commonly offered today, I’ll spend some time and find a link to it.
Maybe I’m being obtuse, but isn’t this inanimate object, the topic of this discussion, a WEAPON whose primary purpose of manufacture is to kill? We’re not talking about a paperweight here, people.
I agree that Martin’s plan lacks teeth and will probably only make it ever-so-slightly more difficult for the paranoid and/or criminal-minded, but hell, it’s a start! The threat of stiffer penalties, while also a good idea, is equally ineffective in stopping crime. Down south they’ll kill a person for killing a person, and yet that doesn’t seem to be making much of a dent in crime rates. Handguns have no purpose in the hands of anyone but police (and yes, even cops do go bad sometimes, or shoot first and ask questions later, but that’s a risk we have to take mosttimes); rural farmers and hunters are welcome to keep their rifles locked away in pieces while not in use.
On another note, I like Chris Rock’s solution:
“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystander .”
Gun control is holding the pistol with both hands to aim better.
“Maybe I’m being obtuse, but isn’t this inanimate object, the topic of this discussion, a WEAPON whose primary purpose of manufacture is to kill? We’re not talking about a paperweight here, people.”
In one instance you are correct, in the other, you are correct. First, with your “correct” premise – a handgun is not a “paperweight.”
Your other premise, regarding it’s primary purpose, is incorrect. And I would like you to consider the evidence. There have been far more rounds shot from handguns for the purpose of sporting leisure than there have been rounds shot for the purpose of killing.
Simply because YOU think it’s sole purpose (your own projection) is to “kill” does not make your projection correct.
And to take this even further, most Olympic sports that involve throwing of inanimate objects (including javelin, shot put, etc) were perhaps originally “developed” from some desire to kill something.
Archery is another example.
But for a moment, consider self defence. I can cite PERSONALLY, at least two occassions, where I know of a handgun SAVING a life (or possible grevious bodily harm) where another person showed aggression towards another.
Would you have rathered, in those two occasions, that the “evil” person that would not have respect for human liberty, have won, because a handgun was used in order to protect human liberty?
I can cite two occassions, both occassions by women, who used hand guns to protect their lives by using a handgun against a physically stronger male.
The handgun more than made the situation “equal” however you define “equal.” It ensured that two women lived, and/or did not suffer grevious bodily harm.
In one instance, 911 was not available – it did not “exist” and even if it did, it is doubtful the response time would have been anything other than someone showing up and saying, “oh, we need an ambulance here to get this injured person to a hospital” and the second instance, 911 was not available due to circumstances and timing.
A well placed .45 calibre bullet was all that stood between her life and the ambitions of her attacker.
So, I can personally attest, in reality, to two situations where a gun was used in self defence.
Now.. perhaps, that person had some martial arts experience. And perhaps with that martial arts experience, the same result was achieved, only it was achieved through the “victim” expending more energy than simply pulling a trigger.
Would you prefer that a victim expend a million times more personal injury in defending herself through the use of martial arts, or a quick and fast solution with much less energy than a trigger finger?
Or should we ban anything to do with self defence where grevious harm might come to another, in the use of that self defence?
Would you prefer a woman, trained in the use of a handgun, to ward off a rapist, or have her scream, kick, yell, punch, and perhaps be overpowered, physically, because you want to ban her from owning a handgun, because you are afraid she may use it against someone in a fit of rage?
I wonder if you’ve ever actually seen someone in a fit of rage? And how they pick up ANYTHING during their rage, to inflict injury on someone else?
But perhaps you would prefer that an innocent victim end up being physically harmed for the rest of their life, instead of the victim being able to use a gun to stop the rage, immediately.
Well, you are more than welcome to try to logically and reasonably argue this – but when we look at reality, I KNOW I’ll be able to show that you are doing nothing but appeal to emotion, instead of pointing to reality.
Would you stop me from using a baseball bat as a weapon against someone that wanted to harm any of my loved ones? I bet not.
So what if I had a friend, that carried a gun, and was able to stop that person before I had to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to figure out my most tactical move with a baseball bat?
I bet you’ve never ever been in a situation where your life depended on what you did, and what was available to you, have you?
Well, I have. And so has my mother. And so has a friend of mine, whom I am very fond of, and am damn glad that she had a .45 available to her.
In principle, what is your problem with that?
” rural farmers and hunters are welcome to keep their rifles locked away in pieces while not in use.”
Yeah well.. what about when they ARE in use? Or when some city slicker from the city, decides to come up and take advantage of the law abiding farmer, who keeps his guns in “pieces?”
Fuck that shit. You are sooo very fucking naive. It would be nice if the only scenarios that ever happened in reality were the ones you dreamt up in life – but life don’t work that way.
Stop fantasizing about reality, and if you want to actually make a logical point, start using logic and reality.
It’s insane thinking to ignore all of reality, and only think about that which one fantasizes about.
Oh, your emotions might not like it, or you may “feel” a certain way about inanimate objects… you feel that way about ALL inanimate objects? Given the right circumstances, I could break your head with a rock the size of a fist.
And you know what? People HAVE broken other peoples’ heads with rocks the size of a fist. Part of the ability to defend oneself is being able to have physical power over those who would do us wrong.
I’m not satisfied with a less than 1% property crime solution rate on behalf of our cops – are you? I ain’t gonna wait around for them, when what I have is more valuable to me than it is to some cop that is making notes on his last call before he responds to my 911 call.
Regardless of your attitude, or your beliefs, even the LAW states I am justified in using as MUCH FORCE as necessary in protecting myself or my property.
Yes, I may very well have to justify my use of FORCE at a later time, but if I can, then it should matter NOT ONE WIT what tool I used in order to effect that amount of force.
And I’ll promise you.. under some circumstances, I could kill you with my bare hands. I’ve been trained to protect myself with my bare hands, and it may not work out.. but under some circumstances, I might just feel the need to kill you with my bare hands.
I can also inflict tremendous pain upon you, (which is NOT the same as “FORCE,” but may indeed motivate you to comply.).
If I am unable, not withstanding all of my training in inflicting pain for the use of having you comply, then what am I left with?
And I’ll tell you this as well.. in some circumstances, I would feel far more comfortable going up against someone armed with a gun then someone armed with a knife. Bring a gun to a fight, and I do have a pretty good chance, as much as it “seems” incorrect, than the chance I have if you bring a knife.
And with a man up against me with a knife, I’d far rather have a gun to take him out than a baseball bat. And in fact, statistically speaking, seeing as you seem to like statistics, you have more chance of running into someone with a knife than you do a gun, in the commission of a criminal act.
I’d personally take my chances against someone with a gun.. most gunshots during the commission of a crime do NOT mean long term harm, scars, etc.
A fucking knife…heh.. be my guest buddy….
I’ve been trained, and I know from experience….. that going up against someone with a knife can be more dangerous than going up against someone with a gun.
But of course, that is hard for you folks that “emote” upon the word “gun” and get all quivery about it, but “knife”.. well.. that’s just something you use to eat your steak with every day.
Idiots.
I should start my blog up again
More people are killed by motor vehicles every year than by guns.
So.. what the fuck is it EXACTLY that is important to you? The “use” of the inanimate object, the “number of folks killed,” or what, exactly?
What the FUCK are YOU willing to give up in order to have less “killing?”
Is it YOUR notions of the purpose of a “tool” that is important?
With the number of damned bugs and rodents I’ve killed in my millions of miles of driving, I’m surprised PETA hasn’t asked for the outlaw of motor vehicles.
Motor vehicles kill more life than ANYTHING, including nuclear weapons. Don’t believe me? Count the fucking moths and mosquitoes on your windshield next time you take a drive on a summer evening.
Multiply the number of squashed moths, ignoring blood of course, on your windshield and headlights, by the number of autmobiles in North America during the seasons of spring and summer, when there appears to be more “life.”
Inanimate objects “kill” all the time. Cars, meteors, boats, ships, doctors’ surgical instruments, etc.
I bet there are more deaths each year due to medical mistakes than by gunshot.
And assholes though, would take away from me, my methods of defence of my property and loved ones, just because guns are something they don’t like.
Let me tell you about the time I saw a man die after he was slugged with a baseball bat numerous times. Imagine.. he MIGHT still be alive if he had a gun, and used AS MUCH FORCE AS NECESSARY in protecting his own life.
Hehe.. yeah.. let’s ban shit that kills people. Let’s start with alcohol and nicotine first .. it kills more people than any “hard” inanimate object ever did. And let’s not stop with booze and cigarrettes.. let’s ban EVERYTHING that kills.
Some of you people are so fucked up in your thoughts about reality – it’s amazing really. Really, what it’s all about is “ban guns cuz they go boom.”
If it don’t go “boom,” it’s ok.
You have more chance of dying from a vehicular accident than you ever do from a gun hold up. Yet… you’d somehow prefer to think of cars as “good” because you want one, and want to get around using one, than think about someone using a gun to protect their lives or valuables.
That’s pretty fucked up, you know?
Cygne: “Maybe I’m being obtuse, but isn’t this inanimate object, the topic of this discussion, a WEAPON whose primary purpose of manufacture is to kill? We’re not talking about a paperweight here, people.”
Yes, you are.
The only people who refer to a gun as a weapon are the military, the police, criminals and the uneducated. To everyone else, it’s a firearm. Please use correct terminology.
The reason, if you care, is because a firearm used in the cases of violence is a weapon. Weapon is a rather generic term and it’s generic with reason. By making it generic it dehumanizes the item, and implies the user. In other words a choice by a human is made.
Let me give a story, the story of Joe Dude . . . lets call him Lance.
Lance grew up in the country with all that implies including learning how to use a firearm. Lance joined the miltary. Lance had the opportunity to fire the 9mm during profiency tests and Naval Landing and Boarding exercises. (Where sailors board a hostile boat.)
Lance loved the 9mm, but mostly because he averaged 58/60 vs. his scores of 54/60 with the FNC7 (that would be a rifle). Lance got out of the military.
Fast forward a few years and Lance remembers the fun of firing the 9mm. He wants one and he is in the position now to afford one. (!)
So, Lance goes to the new courses that replaced the old Hunter Safety Courses . . . although they are the same. Lance pays for these courses and the extra costs for the Restricted classification.
Lance get’s his PAL (Possession and Aquisition License) for Non-restricted (long guns, shot guns, bows) and Restricted (handguns, crossbows, short barrel). It’s only taken ten weeks for the course, and the tests (one for each class of firearm).
Lance then goes out and buys two gun cabinets. One for the firearms, one for ammunition and breeches (look it up, it’s obvious you don’t know about firearms).
Lance then goes to the store. He pays a large amount of money and purchases a handgun. Woot. But then Lance has to go to the Feds to register his firearm. He has to show proof of purchase, licensing and much other crap. The RCMP then do background checks (Lance pays for this) and finally he has to register the firearm . . . which is still at the store.
Now Lance, being a law abidding person has to allow the RCMP to personally question five close aquaintences of his (not including spouses or former spouses, those are required) and allows complete credit checks as well as signing over his rights to require a warrent in the case of search of his premise.
The he gets (after a few months) his registration.
Lance then goes to the store, gets a photograph of the firearm. Lance then goes to the City Police and the RCMP to arrange for a transport license. This allows Lance to move the firearm from the store to his house. The transport license stipulates that no ammunition is to be carried in the same vehicle, the route that the firearm will take and the origination and destination of the firearm.
Lance gets the transport license and takes his firearm hoem.
Later that night Lance invites in the RCMP into his house after they knock so that he can show them that the firearm is disassembled and stored correctly. Ammunition in the second gun cabinet. Lance is being very cooperative.
Lance then has to go through the whole transport affair again when he chooses to shoot his firearm. The RCMP appreciate Lance being a law abidding citizen and smile when Lance comes in. Next time, they suggest, just phone.
In other words, Lance isn’t a risk.
Cheers,
lance
Gun Control Roundup
Gosh, what a surprise. PMPM announces he’s going to “ban” gun control and opinions, both pro and con, appear all over the place. So, a quick roundup. And you may be surprised by some of the stances taken by some…
Heh — imagine that, small dead animals discovering that the stageleft basement bunker is not full of rabidly dogmatic lefties.
“Rabid” is a condition more frequently associated with small animals, dead or nearly so, than with lefties, I think.
SL:
Great post. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Last month, the Liberals were telling us the problem with handguns was primarily the result of a porous border allowing illegal importation from the U.S. Today, we’re told it’s the legally owned handguns stored in gun vaults in the homes of law abiding Canadians.
In nearly every case where a police officer finds a handgun during a search of a person or vehicle, the hand gun is illegally possessed (either unregistered or stolen). In effect, it’s as though there already is a ban on handguns in place for purposes of everyday life on the street, since the current laws governing movement of handguns outside of their residential storage places are incredibly restrictive (to and from designated shooting ranges, for repair or legal sale, and not much else). If memory serves me right, there are only about 20 people in Ontario who possess permits to carry handguns while walking the street.
The root of the current problem stems not from the existence of legally held handguns, or even smuggled handguns for that matter, but from a steady erosion of punishment for violent offences (including firearms offences) meted out by our criminal courts.
Using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence is one of the few ” minimum sentence ” offences in the Criminal Code. Convicted a first time for this offence, you must serve a minimum of 1 year incarceration, but here’s the kicker; you have to serve it CONSECUTIVE to anything else (including the substantive offence from which the use firearm in commission of an offence flowed) for which you’re convicted. The time served before becoming eligible for parole usually increases dramatically as a result. In short, it’s a hated and feared section of the Criminal Code for bad guys, which is why their lawyers usually do their level best to plea-bargain it away with the consent of the Crowns, who too often trade away tough sentences in exchange for the sure win of a guilty plea. This has to stop.
So do the ridiculous sentences (often no jail, or trivial jail terms) for persons caught in possession of unregistered handguns while out in public. The maximum sentence for this is 5 years, but there is no minimum. It isn’t uncommon for these pricks to be under a weapons prohibition order already, arising from previous violent convictions, when caught and sentenced on their current charge of possessing unregistered restricted weapons, and still they skate. Think about that one for a minute. Not only are they found with an illegal handgun, they’re often under a previous court order banning them from having any weapons, let alone firearms, and still we see judges performing contortions to justify giving them kisses for sentences.
Why listen to a party that wants to ban handguns, when they’re the same party that has, for 12 years, presided over a justice system that refuses to adequately punish people who are already banned from possessing handguns?
Waste of money, waste of time.
Handguns are already effectively banned. You have to be dedicated if you want to get one.
I wonder if the long-gun registry has had the unintended consequence of making handguns more appealing, in terms of the black market. In other words, if I’m a criminal and I have the choice between obtaining an illegal rifle or an illegal pistol, and they’re equally hard to get, I’ll take the pistol. So, if supply follows demand, this is why we see more handgun smuggling.
Hey even the Toronto Star is against this idea:
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/12/09/1345337.html
Are you a law abiding citizen…..?
Do you legally own a handgun……?
Well it’s YOUR fault,
That blacks are shooting blacks in toronto..!!
You the legal hand gun owner are the real criminals..!!
You will be punished..!!
Your guns will be confiscated..!
Paul Martin says so…..!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice day ……..!!!!!!!!!!
… LoL …