Liberals want Handgun Ban

[childs56]

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

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

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

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

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

Guns don't kill people, People kill people.  

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

 

[3rd Herd]

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

 

[Glorified Ape]

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

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

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

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

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

Real smart way to keep the guns off the street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

 

[BKells]

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

Planes[/quote]

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

 

[mdh]

Keep hand guns - ban the Liberals


mdh

 

[BKells]

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

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

 

[UberCree]

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


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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

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

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

So that is a pretty weak point.

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

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

Another weak point.

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

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

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

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

Security is not a sufficient argument for gun control.  I can find lots of examples of prohibitions which will serve a greater "public good" than banning some or all firearms.  It is unfortunate some people spend their lives quaking in fear of life itself.  Those opposed to firearm ownership on security grounds are irrational - I can think of no other way to describe a whimsical approach to risk management.  "Snowmobiles and swimming pools and ski hills and imprudent/unhealthy sexual practices OK. Guns bad."  In the absence of their ability to formulate an informed policy on public safety grounded in proportionality - eliminate the greatest risks first - I will thank them to respect the pre-eminence of liberty over security....>

Nearly everyone pays taxes and nearly everyone makes use of the essential services of government.  Here's a better example: I propose to seize and destroy (without compensation) all automotive products capable of exceeding 120 k/h because there should be no reason for anyone to unsafely exceed the maximum speed limits of the land.  How do you feel about that?  Am I intruding on something that makes you feel uncomfortable yet?

The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?  How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?  Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.

Unprincipled egoist seems to fit the bill....

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Planes

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

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

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

 

[Kal]

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

 

[Blue Max]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote Conservative.

 

[redleafjumper]

For wide distribution, provided with permission:


Media Release

For immediate release December 08 2005 

National Firearms Association, BC Branch

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

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

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

-30-


For media information contact:

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

 

[dutchie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

criminals don't mind breaking gun laws to kill people

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

 

[dutchie]

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

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

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

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

 

[S McKee]

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

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

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

 

[dutchie]

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