# What a tool!!



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I can't believe this. Martin wants to ban handguns outright.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=2113839&lid=today+box

You think the idiot would realize the Gun Registry has done nothing to stem handgun violence. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem. But now he is going to take the rights away from a minority to please the left leaning liberal public.  

If anything, a logical person would turf the stupid Gun Registry, put more police on the street, increase penalities for posession of illegal weapons and make judges acutally hand out real sentences.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

The Gomery Report is bad enough, but can you imagine if there was inquiry into exactly where the billion plus dollars for the gun registry actually went?
Another potential scandal methinks.


----------



## manaia (Oct 1, 2005)

*Good job...*

You can't hunt anything in Canada with a handgun. Let alone many other Countries.
It's illegal.
Besides. Rifles are much more effective.

What is the point in owning one? Unless you go to the firing range every night? 
Self defense has nothing to do with it if no-one is allowed to carry one.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

manaia said:


> You can't hunt anything in Canada with a handgun. Let alone many other Countries.
> It's illegal.
> Besides. Rifles are much more effective.
> 
> ...


What's the point of owning anything? Should we pass laws that you can't buy anything unless it has utility?

What's the point of buying a nice piece of art, a sports car or an expensive watch?

Some people like handguns. Some people like to shoot handguns at the range. Some people want handguns for self defense. These LAW ABIDING owners don't go around shooting people with their guns. They are very responsible. Yet, they get picked on by the Liberal government.

Think of things you like that somebody might take exception to. They're next....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> These LAW ABIDING owners don't go around shooting people with their guns. They are very responsible.


Yet many of those law abiding owners refused to register their guns....




Vandave said:


> Yet, they get picked on by the Liberal government.


There is a difference between the law and "being picked on by Liberals"... But that I'm sure is lost upon you....


Vandave said:


> Think of things you like that somebody might take exception to. They're next....


Neo-Cons?
********?
Stupidity?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

In all the years that Britain has registered and restricted firearms, not a single crime has been solved by reference to the list.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

rgray said:


> In all the years that Britain has registered and restricted
> firearms, not a single crime has been solved by reference to the list.


Are you sure? Perhaps you have something to back that statement up?

I was under the impression the registry was to help the authorities as tool, not provide a "magic bullet" solution for every crime. :heybaby:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

This is a huge political gamble by Martin. I am surprised he is doing it so early in the campaign. The conservatives are now going to have an army of volunteers for this election. In the meantime, the Liberal supporters are going to be sitting at home.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Think of things you like that somebody might take exception to. They're next....



See, I suspect that that is only true if the thing I like that others take exception to has a tendency to result in (usually accidental, granted) deaths.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yet many of those law abiding owners refused to register their guns....


You have no evidence to prove that.



ArtistSeries said:


> There is a difference between the law and "being picked on by Liberals"... But that I'm sure is lost upon you....


They are the ones passing laws picking on a particular group in society.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You have no evidence to prove that.


C'mon, Vandave, you can do better than that. There is more than sufficient annectodal evidence to support the claim. Maybe we can't draw numbers from annecdotes, but we can certainly recognise over-arching realities. A better response might be to point out that refusing to obey a law you believe to be wrong is often a laudable action.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> See, I suspect that that is only true if the thing I like that others take exception to has a tendency to result in (usually accidental, granted) deaths.


Nope, everything that is fun in any way.... Gone....

Anything that offends anybody in any way... Gone...

Like meat? Screw you... 100% of the animals you ate died for that... The vegetarians will eventually get it banned.

Like hockey? Screw you... People get broken necks and sometimes even die... It's too dangerous... Our health care can't afford it.

Like fast computers? Screw you... You don't need a G5, when a G4 will do... Come on, your are just surfing the internet... Our planet is dying because you are eating up all that electricity.

Like fast cars? Screw you... You can't drive over 100 km in Canada... People die in car accidents...

Like alcohol? Screw you... People drink and drive all the time and cause accidents... I say we ban cars outright as well.

Like knives? Screw you... Double the number of people die from stabbings than handguns of all things. We better set up a knife registry. 

I am scared to leave home now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> C'mon, Vandave, you can do better than that. There is more than sufficient annectodal evidence to support the claim. Maybe we can't draw numbers from annecdotes, but we can certainly recognise over-arching realities. A better response might be to point out that refusing to obey a law you believe to be wrong is often a laudable action.


No, I believe people should follow laws, even these stupid ones. If I had a handgun, I would register it. I don't believe many handgun owners didn't register their guns. I bet the vast majority did. The people who didn't register their guns were the criminals and the odd person who forgot about the gun they inherited from grandpa that's sitting somewhere in the attic.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

While I don't believe in banning hand guns for the simple reason that criminals will get their hands on them anyhow.
Yes this is a gimmick by the Liberals to look like they are doing something in the TO area about gun violence.
It is part of reforms that the Liberals would like. Without all the details, I find it premature to comment about "the idiot".

But you may find this interesting


> The Public Safety Department says spousal homicides involving firearms in Canada have plunged dramatically since the federal gun-control program and registry were launched in 1995.
> The number of spousal homicides involving firearms -- the vast majority of which involve men killing women -- has declined overall by 36 per cent.
> The overall number of firearm murders decreased to 161 in 2003 from 176 in 1995, the records show.
> Gun-related suicides have dropped significantly since the firearms program and registry were introduced, down 28.5 per cent from 911 in 1995 to 651 in 2001, the latest figures available for that category.


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=64f51972-afb2-48f9-9528-926f0619b33d&k=69242&p=2


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> No, I believe people should follow laws, even these stupid ones. If I had a handgun, I would register it. I don't believe many handgun owners didn't register their guns. I bet the vast majority did. The people who didn't register their guns were the criminals and the odd person who forgot about the gun they inherited from grandpa that's sitting somewhere in the attic.


Well, the Ottawa Valley must be an aberration, then. There are an awful lot of people who are neither criminals nor forgetful with unregistered guns around here. Rifles and shotguns, mostly.

For what it's worth, I agree that the registry was badly managed and wasted money. I believe that it is poorly designed, and possibly not saveable without major readjustment. But I support it's basic principle. If you honestly believe that it is comparable to the majority of other things on that hysterical list of yours, I would love to understand your logic. 'cause I certainly don't see it.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> If anything, a logical person would turf the stupid Gun Registry, put more police on the street, increase penalities for posession of illegal weapons and make judges acutally hand out real sentences.


It might be useful for you to delve into the entire policy release. The handgun ban is but one part of the announcement.
- there will be tougher penalties for crimes involving weapons
- $325m put into law enforcement, including more officers on the street
- investment in the communities where extreme violence is most pronounced to reduce youth unemployment.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Pelao said:


> It might be useful for you to delve into the entire policy release. The handgun ban is but one part of the announcement.
> - there will be tougher penalties for crimes involving weapons


Those penalties already exist. Our judges don't sentence anybody and our system plea bargains everything done to nothing. Once you get jail, you will get early release.

That's all a bunch of bull.



Pelao said:


> It - $325m put into law enforcement, including more officers on the street


Yes, good idea. Pull the cops from handing out tickets on the freeways and let them patrol the street.



Pelao said:


> - investment in the communities where extreme violence is most pronounced to reduce youth unemployment.


That's a bunch of garbage. Many of the kids packing guns here in Vancouver come from the burbs. They drive into town with their souped up cars and they think they are gansta's. This is the real problem. It's a social problem, not an employment problem. There are plenty of jobs around. Unemployment has dropped, yet gun violence in Toronto and Vancouver has gone up. People here get shot outside of clubs. To get in you pay $20 cover and $10 a drink. Do you think these people have a money problem????


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Well, this certainly changes my thinking on the election...*

I was planning on voting green or NDP, but with this announcement, the Liberals have gained a supporter.

I would _love_ to see Canada join the rational world and ban handgun ownership by citizens.

Sure, it's true that there are responsible owners, and that this decision impinges on their freedoms. But that's always the case. The question is where do we find the balance between the needs of society and the needs of the individuals. To me, the handgun issue is a no-brainer. Nobody needs these weapons, and they are frequently used to commit violent crimes.

If the weapons themselves are illegal, we don't have to wait for them to be used before apprehending the criminal.

As for Vandave's reducto ad absurdum, contending that restricting handguns is analogous to restricting fast computers, let's turn it around. Clearly, since there are responsible gun owners, and we shouldn't restrict their freedom to own handguns, we should also allow citizens without criminal records to collect rocket-propelled-grenade launchers. And let's not forget the responsible thermonuclear weapons collectors. How often have hydrogen bombs been used in violent crimes? _Never_! I say, let's legalize 'em!

Cheers


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

As much as I think this is a stupid waste of time with respect to its eventual effectiveness, you can't help but think that this is a great campaign move. It is another one of those niggling, irrelevant election topics that have absolutely nothing to do with what goes on in day to day life in Canada. 

The brilliance is the divisiveness it generates (see posts above) for campaigners in the run up to the election. I can see it already. 
"We want to ban handguns and make Canadian's safer." 
"Banning handguns won't work"
"What, you want criminals to have handguns and threaten our safety."
"No, but..."
"You want peoples lives to be at risk because of handguns??"
"No, but..."

And on it goes. It is like abortion or dope smoking. Brought up at election time to generate debate and deflect from the issues that we should be concerned with.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If anything, a logical person would ... increase penalities for posession of illegal weapons and make judges acutally hand out real sentences.


What a great idea, Vandave! Make all handguns illegal and the penalties for carrying them brutal and the sentencing swift. That would definitely lower the number of perps willing to take a chance in using a handgun and make us all feel more safe.  Just teasing, I know, that wasn't what you meant but that is the way I see it.

I don't buy the argument that banning handguns is the same as banning [insert your favourite thing here]. For me it is a no brainer, (1) handguns have no use but for shooting people (target practice? What are you practicing for?) yet (2) killing people is the worst offense our society has laws for. Sure people will always find a way to kill each other, but why would a government legally allow a tool whose sole purpose is to enable you to commit the biggest crime against society possible? Protection of the innocent? 

Weak argument, and one that leads to death and injury because of misuse of the weapon (I don't want anyone but a highly-trained professional brandishing a handgun in my vicinity, and I'll pass on that situation if I could as well). I suspect far more people have been killed by handguns than innocent people have avoided harm by having one--no idea how you could get the stats on that, though--so I don't have confidence in an approach that allows amateurs to carry handguns as a means of "leveling the playing field" either. 

How about mandatory training for anyone who wants a handgun? Think of all the idiots you know and how well equipped they would be to deal with a handgun after a day, week or month of handgun instruction. Scary. There is training for using handguns, it's called police academy, and even they don't always get it right.

I also don't see the relevance of the ill-conceived gun registry to this discussion since handguns are already more restricted than long-guns. This is a ban we are talking about, not a useless tracking system. As in, if you are caught with a handgun, you will be prosecuted. Yes, make sure the penalties stick.

But this is one of those topics that opinions are almost never changed, so I don't know why I bothered writing all this when I have serious work to do!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Carex said:


> As much as I think this is a stupid waste of time with respect to its eventual effectiveness, you can't help but think that this is a great campaign move. It is another one of those niggling, irrelevant election topics that have absolutely nothing to do with what goes on in day to day life in Canada.


Yes and no. It doesn't affect Canadians day to day. It's a false issue. But at the same time, the larger issue is about our civil rights.

On the first day of the campaign, I was very disapointed in Harper and wasn't happy about the gay marriage issue. To me it was wrong to prevent this group from having equal rights. I decided not to help on the Conservative campaign.

But now, I see other peoples rights being threatened by the Liberals. 

The writings on the wall people. Your rights will be next. You think my examples are extreme, but just wait...

Seriously, why don't we have a knife registry? More people die this way.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The creeping controls seem more obvious in municipal politics with their constant bylaws. Also, if you own a condo, you see how the people with the most spare time and willingness to nitpick about everything are the ones that propose the most rules. 

There's always some base reason and lots of volume in their message, but in the end it seems to be more about getting their way, than it is about addressing the real problem (violent crime in the gun example). What is the best package of policies, giving consideration to many things, including personal choice, to address violent crime? Banning handguns may be part of that package, but I suspect it's there primarily because

a) They're focussing on urban Ontario voters (urban voters in general)
b) It's cheap to ban things (almost free actually) because the costs are in enforcements (you can choose not to) and in lost freedom

I actually support a form of handgun ban, but this is far from a black and white issue.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

What bothers me is that 84 per cent of handguns used in violent crimes are illegal unregistered guns. (see CTV story on their website today). 

Banning handguns won't do anything because thugs who use them will continue to use them. Making the penalty for using a gun in a crime severe enough to either curb usage or to put those who do in jail would be more effective. 

Bottom line is this will only give people a false sense of security. Reality is that handguns will continue to be used in violent crimes.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Bottom line is this will only give people a false sense of security. Reality is that handguns will continue to be used in violent crimes.



Hi,

If handguns were not available in Canada then they would just float up from the US.

s.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

mr.steevo said:


> Hi,
> 
> If handguns were not available in Canada then they would just float up from the US.
> 
> s.


Which is why the second part of Mr. Martin's announcement was to increase RCMP personnel and increase enforcement of illegal traffic in guns...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Banning handguns won't do anything because thugs who use them will continue to use them.


One reason this is incorrect is that it is currently legal to possess a handgun, and it is therefore a problem to distinguish a legally owned/obtained gun from an illegally owned/obtained gun. If all handguns are illegal, anyone (other than police or military) in possession of one is, by definition, a criminal.

This fundamental change will dramatically reduce the number of guns in society, and therefore the availability of guns to criminals. Moreover, it will make the illegal trade in guns more difficult, more expensive, more dangerous, and easier to curtail.

I'm sure this won't end violent crime, or even handgun crime, but it will definitely reduce it. And that reduction is worth the cost of the freedom to frivolously go shooting pistols at a range (for there is no other legal use for these weapons in our society now).

And as for the idea that more deaths resulted from gun-accidents than there were incidents of guns being successfully used in self-defence, that's true. In fact, there are more people killed while _cleaning_ their guns than people who use a gun to protect themselves (not counting all the kids that get killed playing with guns they've found, or guns that otherwise find their way into tragic circumstances)(Kellermann AL, Westphal, L, Fischer, Harvard B. Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes. JAMA. 
1995;273:1759-62.).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

NBiBooker said:


> What bothers me is that 84 per cent of handguns used in violent crimes are illegal unregistered guns. (see CTV story on their website today).
> 
> Banning handguns won't do anything because thugs who use them will continue to use them. Making the penalty for using a gun in a crime severe enough to either curb usage or to put those who do in jail would be more effective.
> 
> Bottom line is this will only give people a false sense of security. Reality is that handguns will continue to be used in violent crimes.


:clap: :clap:

NBiBooker is one of the few who truly understands that banning handguns will accomplish ZERO results.

Wake up people. The handguns that are killing our youth on the streets of major Canadian cities are ILLEGAL and UNREGISTERED.

Banning handguns will not change that elementary fact.

Handguns will continue to be the weapon of choice among gang members and criminal youth who fashion themselves to be "gangstas".

Anyone who honestly can say they believe banning handguns will change this as fact are clueless. Guns of all types are far too easy to obtain in Canada and for the most part originate in the USA.

Handguns are here to stay. Even the Liberals know that, but if they get one guy to switch his vote because of it, that one guy has swallowed their bait, hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

CanadaRAM said:


> Which is why the second part of Mr. Martin's announcement was to increase RCMP personnel and increase enforcement of illegal traffic in guns...


Let's hope 250 officers is enough.  

I say ban them, but leave some sort of opening for people to own them for sport... and target shooting is a sport (http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/disciplines_uk.asp?DiscCode=SH), whether or not you think it should be. Maybe they have to be left at the range and can only be transported via courier. Something to at least give these people an option.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

History of gun control in Canada:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/hist/firearms/firearms_control_e.asp

Our current handgun controls are quite good (from the embassy): 
"The registration of all handguns has been required by federal law since 1934, and since 1968 permits to carry them have been restricted to a few specific circumstances, for example, use in target practice or competition, protection in extreme cases where police protection isn't adequate, and in certain jobs, such as transporting large amounts of cash or other valuables. Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1977."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Handguns will continue to be the weapon of choice among gang members and criminal youth who fashion themselves to be "gangstas".


Why are they the weapon of choice? Why?

Every day I turn on the radio and there's one more politician bleating about urban crime, gangs and shootings. And every day I hear "solutions" from politicians that attack only the symptoms, not the cause. I'm so damn sick of it.

The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs.

I repeat: The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs

The reason illegal drugs are the cause is because they are so insanely profitable. The reason they are so insanely profitable, is because there are huge risks involved with importing, producing and trafficking in them because we promote the war on drugs. Naturally the only people who want to get involved in this cash bonanza are those who are willing to get involved in crime, who like to be gangsta's, who are willing to risk jail and death for the insanely huge financial rewards. Gangs, bikers, organized crime. And these guys create the demand for handguns.

Somehow years ago we learned the lesson from alcohol prohibition, but only after creating the roots of today's Mafia while capitalizing the families for generations and after many years of police corruption, death, shootings and crime. We are doing the same today with urban gangs and biker gangs, whose membership is increasing. Even though some of them get caught, most don't and they are getting increasingly richer and more powerful. The last thing these groups want to see is for our society to quit the war on drugs.

The war on drugs can not be won. I'll repeat: the war on drugs can not be won. But the harder we try, the more crime and criminals, not to mention harm to addicts is then created.

I doubt if a handgun ban will be effective, it will just be an added "cost" of doing business, which will be passed on to the consumers, who will have to break into a few more cars or apartments to get the cash for the product.

And Harper's approach, a few days ago of marching into BC and announcing he would de-fund harm reduction and clean injection sites and increase the penalties for drug offences is also guaranteed to make the problem worse, as the last several decades have shown. Of course he's only following the script that the US neo-con geniuses that he so idolizes have written for him. We can see how well it has worked down there.

Read what some law-enforcement pros have to say who have realized the hypocrisy and futility of what most of their colleagues are engaged in: L.E.A.P. - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

From Drug War Facts.org


> Crime
> 
> The chart at the right illustrates the homicide rate in the United States from 1900 to 1998. It is important to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> It isn't that there will be less crime right away when handguns are illegal, it's that when criminals use them they will be doubly crimininals, and punished accordingly.


Then why not just legislate that? I think they already do in any case. It's just our judicial system that does nothing about it.



HowEver said:


> Yes, this will make a criminal out of your ordinary, gun-toting citizen, if they have a handgun. And if most of us can live with that, and you can't, there is a huge country south of us where you can spend your time.


Then why don't you go to Japan? You are the one who thinks civilian gun owernship is a problem.



HowEver said:


> As for banning anything fun, let's just ban specious arguments.


I see politicians banning fun all the time to get votes. Snowboarders couldn't go to numerous ski hills for years because people thought they were a hazard to skiiers. 

Kids with skateboards are harrassed all the time for doing something fun and active.

Kids who play hockey on the street get in trouble with the police as well.

Our society is so concerned about the dumbest things. JUST LET PEOPLE LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES. 



HowEver said:


> Equating vegetarianism with gun-banning is not only imbecilic, it's a massive red herring: most vegetarians, although offended by carnivores, have no interest in making them criminals. But if you *feel* like a criminal when you eat meat, that is very much your own problem.


It's not a red herring. Clearly this is not going to affect crime stats. The Gun Registry has already shown this. So, why create such legislation? Because, a group of people are forcing their political views on others. I think its related to the anti-americanism of the Liberal party in that they appeal to people who oppose anything the US stands for. 

To me this is no different than pushing any other political view (e.g. vegetarians). If one group does it, what's to stop the rest?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Because, a group of people are forcing their political views on others. I think its related to the anti-americanism of the Liberal party in that they appeal to people who oppose anything the US stands for.


Have you gone off your rocker? 
Where does the Liberal party have an anti-american stance?
And what does the US stand for exactly?

Seems that this thread has gone from sad to pathetic...


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs.


There are no simple answers to the problem. It sure ain't simply because of handguns!

Granted, crack, methaphetamines, coke, heroin, etc. are a problem. Certainly NOT the ROOT of the problem, but more like a catalyst.

The root of the problem is complex and multi-faceted.

There is an engrained lack of vision on the part of community leaders.

There is a "F-it" attitude amongst young dis-enfranchised males in big and small urban centres across Canada, and for a variety of reasons. Many of these youth, I am sure you will find, come from single-parent homes. Many have "adopted" gang life in lieu of a real family life. Many have dropped out of school. Most have given up hope that they will live "the Canadian Dream", or whatever advertisers would have us believe is "the Canadian Dream", which is really "The White Canadian Dream". Racism is rampant here in Toronto, I don't know how anyone can deny it. It is rampant in Winnipeg too, against native peoples. And in many, many towns and cities across Canada. I can not imagine how tough it must be for a young black man living near Jane and Finch in Toronto with only a very tired mother, who is working hard at two jobs to feed, house and clothe her five children. Then there is the culture that some bring to Canada - the culture of "eye for an eye", which is very common in some countries. The lack of respect is not too surprising, hell, MOST youth stopped respecting their elders years ago. And the police force could use some education too, in dealing with this mess.

I am rambling.

Reasons for gun violence:

Certain illicit drugs and all that comes with it
Lack of respect for others
Broken families
Racism
Conformism amongst youth
"Us against them" attitude
Emulation of certain rap stars and their lifestyles as shown in videos (escapism)
No accountability for actions
Silent communities (law-abiders won't "squeal" for fear of reprisal

Would anyone else like to add/detract for this list of reasons?

Mel


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Melonie said:


> Reasons for gun violence:
> 
> Certain illicit drugs and all that comes with it
> Lack of respect for others
> ...


A fine list, but I would identify what in there is for immediate government policy, much broader than policy, just part of our nature (you'll spin your wheels trying to address it), or what is a symptom of something else (addressing it directly will not be too useful).

Certain illicit drugs and all that comes with it -- government policy
Lack of respect for others -- nature/symptom
Broken families -- much broader than policy
Racism -- everything, not clearly immediate policy nowadays
Conformism amongst youth -- nature
"Us against them" attitude -- nature/symptom
Emulation of certain rap stars and their lifestyles as shown in videos (escapism) --symptom
No accountability for actions -- everything, legal framework can help, to a point
Silent communities (law-abiders won't "squeal" for fear of reprisal -- symptom, don't blame the victim

Just my opinions, but I'm very encouraged to see this and other posts really address the problem, not the items.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Damn! Paul Martin certainly knows how to stir things up! I usually would not vote Liberal, but now I'm taking a second look.

I would whole-heartedly support an outright ban on ownership of handguns. We've done the whole debate back and forth, blah blah blah. Not going to get into it again.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Damn! Paul Martin certainly knows how to stir things up! I usually would not vote Liberal, but now I'm taking a second look.
> 
> I would whole-heartedly support an outright ban on ownership of handguns. We've done the whole debate back and forth, blah blah blah. Not going to get into it again.


Too late. It's on...tptptptp 

You Toronto people want to ban everything. Pitt Bulls are gone there as well. Again, what a stupid policy. It's the same thing as... guns don't kill people... I do... err... people do...

These dogs are not violent by nature, it's the idiot owners who raise them. 30 or 40 years ago, Pitt Bulls were viewed as a friendly family pet. Remember the Rascals? That dog Spot was a Pitt Bull. What's next? Better get rid of birds, they carry Bird Flu. Bye bye parrots...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Damn! Paul Martin certainly knows how to stir things up! I usually would not vote Liberal, but now I'm taking a second look.
> 
> I would whole-heartedly support an outright ban on ownership of handguns. We've done the whole debate back and forth, blah blah blah. Not going to get into it again.


No doubt a clever and calculated attempt on the part of the Liberals to appear to be doing something about crime and the handgun deaths plaguing cities like Toronto and Vancouver. I'd bet Martin's advisors have stats and polls that tell them this will get them votes exactly where they need them. No doubt this is also designed to enrage the Cons fringe of gun-toting types, making them appear to the urban voters as even more extreme. Probably a good chess move.

I don't see it as having the desired effect, although I'm am generally philosophically for the idea of better gun-control. The answer to curbing much of these handgun deaths is replacing the war on drugs fantasy with something more realistic and workable.

(Sigh.) But like Kim Campbell famously said: "An election is no time to discuss serious issues." She was only telling the truth, which is also something you should not do during an election campaign.

So let's carry on with fantasy solutions.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I go to a public high school in Toronto, and to be honest, I've seen my fair share of guns. While this outright ban won't solve the problem of illegal weapons, it sure as hell won't hurt. I'm glad at least one of the parties finally picked up on this idea, just look at the UK, done pretty well there. Besides, hand guns have a single purpose - to kill another person. We aren't talking about rifles that are intended to be used on Game, we're talking about weapons that have no other use but to take another human being's life. Liberals have my support


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

trump said:


> I go to a public high school in Toronto, and to be honest, I've seen my fair share of guns. While this outright ban won't solve the problem of illegal weapons, it sure as hell won't hurt. I'm glad at least one of the parties finally picked up on this idea, just look at the UK, done pretty well there. Besides, hand guns have a single purpose - to kill another person. We aren't talking about rifles that are intended to be used on Game, we're talking about weapons that have no other use but to take another human being's life. Liberals have my support


This isn't the UK. Who is going to bring guns there? Ze Germans? They don't have a million mile continuous border with a country packing mega heat. I'm sorry, but there is no comparison.

Listen to what the EXPERTS say:

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article....icleID=2114262


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Handguns are more dangerous in the hands of inexperienced users than a rifle.
So far as I'm concerned, the police are the only individuals that should carry one.
I fully support banning the sale of easily concealed firearms. When they are in the possession of inexperienced hands, or those with ill will, accidents happen.

BTW, neither the UK nor Canada "share a million mile continuous border with another country packing mega heat."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Listen to what the EXPERTS say:
> 
> http://www.mytelus.com/news/article....icleID=2114262


Link appears to be broken, Dave.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Link appears to be broken, Dave.


http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cbc/vancouver_home&articleID=2114262


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I don't believe many handgun owners didn't register their guns. I bet the vast majority did. ..."

I can guarantee that every handgun that was legally in the possession of it's owner has been registered. They were registered before Bill C-41, in case you weren't paying attention, because mandatory registration of handguns has been the law in Canada for many, many years (our first gun control law was passed in 1937).

The only unregistered handguns that exist in Canada are the same unregistered handguns that have been outlawed for about 50 years. This election promise is a shallow ploy to play on the fears of those who don't know anything about the issue.

Mr Martin's plan to ban handguns will not make a single handgun that wasn't illegal last week go away, but will make every single legal handgun disappear. This after many many promises regarding the intentions of Alan Rock's legislation.

Now, if the government really cared about illegal handguns, especially regarding the illegal handguns that have played prominently in the Toronto news lately, then he should be looking at stopping the trade in smuggled guns. Not surprisingly, it's exactly the same people who made their living smuggling cigarettes that make their living smuggling $ 60 handguns.

What is worse, is what will happen with handguns in general in North America. For every Canadian who is familiar with gun laws in Canada there are 20 Americans who follow every word spoken by Mr Rock and now Mr Martin. They can recite the promises made better than you or I can, and can recite every cost overrun and and every bogus budget estimate.

And they will be able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to every American that might believe, perhaps, some form of registration might be a good idea in the US, that every word and every promise Canada made on gun control laws was an outright lie, and the sole purpose of any gun restriction, no matter how benign it might first appear, is to take all your guns away.

If, and that's a big if, a single life is saved in Toronto by removing all the registered handguns in the country, leaving the same illegal ones that have caused so much suffering in Ontario, know that hundreds, perhaps thousands, will die in America because we proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the NRA was right all along; any gun law, no matter how reasonable, must be fought and defeated.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You Toronto people want to ban everything. Pitt Bulls are gone there as well. Again, what a stupid policy.


I agree. The pitbull ban was a completely stupid move. I don't know of ANYONE who can actually support it.

It all could have been resolved with a very simple law - EVERY dog in a public place MUST be muzzled. End of story.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

A superb idea. Maybe I'll vote for him now. Not only should the guns be confiscated and crushed, the owners apparently need to have their craniums adjusted as well.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gordguide gets it, Gerbill doesn't. Simple as that.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> A superb idea. Maybe I'll vote for him now. Not only should the guns be confiscated and crushed, the owners apparently need to have their craniums adjusted as well.


I'm sure Big Brother will get onto the cranial adjustments soon enough. Since I don't agree with what's good for me, I sure could use some 're-education'.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

jicon said:


> BTW, neither the UK nor Canada "share a million mile continuous border with another country packing mega heat."


I was exagerating. Canada and the US share the longest undefended border in the world. You can go 100s of miles in parts and not have a border crossing.

We can't stop drugs or any other contraband. Why do we think we could reduce guns? It's just too easy for things to cross the border we share with the US. It would be different if we lived on an island.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Blah blah blah gun control.
Blah blah blah won't stop criminals.
Blah blah blah punishes law-abiding citizens.
Blah blah blah Prairies vs Ontario.

We argued it to death in a thread earlier this year. Now everyone is rehashing the same arguments (like they think they can win).

Nobody wants to really do anything to stop the gun crime. Until people do come up with an idea that works (death penalty for touching an illegal weapon!), there is no winning this debate.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Actually quite a few here "get it", SINC, which is refreshing to see. Gordguide, Melonie and even GratuitousApplesause..."get it"!

I'll let you all in on a dirty little secret...this is Martin's "smoke and mirrors" politics. The plain fact about the ban is that *registered target shooters and those belonging to clubs* will continue to keep their handguns. Just as it is now.

Those who have registered handguns, like grandad's WW2 Luger, are sh!t out of luck and will have to turn them in. Whooo-fu**ing-hooo!

In the mean time...and after the ban...the smuggling will continue, prices of illegal firearms will skyrocket, wannabee gangstas and drug dealers will continue to shoot each other.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Is it THAT bad of an idea? Sure, you lefties will come up with thousands of reasons.
It's a right to own a hand gun? Don't kid me. A weapon is a weapon and **** happens. Kids can sneak into your room, put the gun in his napsack and bring it to school. How convenient it is for criminals to break into your house and take the gun. It's free for them and untraceble (well... It'll just trace back to the law abiding, "responsible" citizen).

I don't know about you, but I think I will sleep better knowing there are less weapons out there. Especially hand guns and other concealible weapons. They are good for nothing and they should've been banned long ago.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Let's look at the legal handgun owner in Canada. He must apply to be eligible to purchase a handgun. Once he does, he will have a background check performed by the local police. In my experience, the police will take 3 to 6 months to perform this check. They will visit the home of the prospective owner. They will talk to his neighbors, his employer, the people around town, other officers, and the members of the gun club he belongs to, which will have a target range.

He must have any gun legally purchased by him delivered to the police; no Canadian can take delivery of a handgun from any dealer or seller. Once the background check is complete, he will get a phone call from the police to come pick up his gun.

While at the police station, he will be given an opportunity to get his gun permits. He will be given one permit for sure; that will be the permit to convey. It will state that he is authorized to take the gun from the police station to his home. Once. By the most direct route. No stopping.

The gun cannot be concealed; it must remain in plain sight at all times, nor can there be a round in the gun at any time. He cannot leave the vehicle for any reason. If he cannot abide by any of these rules, he must call a police officer immediately.

If he is a member of a gun club with a gun range, he may want to ask for a second permit to convey. This will be the most liberal permit he will ever have regarding his handgun. It will state his home address, the address of the gun range, and any date and time restrictions within reason (eg if the range is closed Sundays, conveying on Sunday will be prohibited). He must follow the same rules as the first permit to convey; most direct route, no stopping for any reason, concealment illegal, must remain with the gun at all times, etc.

He cannot do anything else with the gun, unless he has a range on his property, he cannot shoot it anywhere not listed on the permit to convey. If he moves from one house to another, he must get a permit to convey from the police to move the gun to his new home. If he takes it to the gunsmith for work, he must get a permit to convey. He must have the gun and all ammunition stored separately and under separate lock and key.

More recent legislation (C-41) deals with safe storage of firearms, which extends the laws that have always existed for handguns to all guns, and makes further restrictions (ie guns and ammo must be stored separately, buildings and vehicles must be locked at all times, guns and ammo each must be in locked containers within these locked buildings or vehicles, guns must be inoperable, such as trigger lock installed, the same key cannot open both gun and ammunition container, etc).

Some things that will prevent you from owning a handgun in Canada:

Being convicted of any offense involving violence or threats.
Being convicted of a serious criminal offense of any kind.
Being barred by a court.
Not being able to obtain the written consent of every partner or spouse with whom you've had a relationship within the previous 5 years.
Failing to have a current membership in a gun club with a legal, operating target range suitable for handguns.
Filling out the handgun permit application incorrectly. For example, you are given a multiple choice question regarding why you want a handgun. There is one correct answer and a bunch of incorrect ones. Incorrect answers = denial of permit.
Having been denied a permit previously. You may never get one. Keep trying, I guess.

No one can carry concealed handguns in Canada. Private Investigator? Sorry, only on TV. Bodyguard? Nope. Concealed (ie not in plain sight at all times) is illegal, period.

Again this is nothing new. The procedure is unchanged from at least 25 years ago, and probably longer. Does anyone honestly think any "Gangsta" has a legal handgun, or that if one went missing, no-one would know or the owner of that legal gun would not be charged with an offense if it were used in a crime? It's patently ridiculous.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

**** happens.

Google search on the death of 6 year old Kayla Rolland in Flint, Michigan.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

It's interesting that people find the enjoyment derived from firing handguns at ranges really justifies all of the potential risks or loss of human life.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> **** happens.
> 
> Google search on the death of 6 year old Kayla Rolland in Flint, Michigan.


Do we regulate by extreme events? For every child killed by a gun, I'll find 20 examples of children killed while running across the street. Maybe we should ban streets instead.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> It's interesting that people find the enjoyment derived from firing handguns at ranges really justifies all of the potential risks or loss of human life.


Have you ever driven your car for leisure?

That's pretty selfish of you because statistically speaking, the more you drive, the more people die on the road.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> **** happens.
> 
> Google search on the death of 6 year old Kayla Rolland in Flint, Michigan.


Why bother? Irrelevant.

This is Canada, not the US and if you read gordguide's post above, it is very restrictive to even think of owning a handgun here. Banning handguns is simply a Liberal election ploy, no more, no less.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kps said:


> Actually quite a few here "get it", SINC, which is refreshing to see. Gordguide, Melonie and even GratuitousApplesause..."get it"!


I'm not sure what you mean by _"even"_ GratuitousApplesauce, or by "get it" for that matter, but I have to agree with those that say that a hand gun ban won't impact the gun crime problem much.

I don't really care how hard it makes a gun collectors life, not a huge issue as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the increased border guards that were announced could make some possible difference. But unless they are planning on searching everyone and everything that passes the border, it won't.

Who has illegal handguns and why do they have them? From what I've read it's primarily urban gang members and bikers. The reason they have them and the reason these groups membership's are growing, is because of the massive lure of quick money from illegal drugs. A market that is made lucrative and fostered by prohibition and the unworkable war on drugs.

It's like we have a headache, so we take an aspirin that might work partially or temporarily. But if the cause of the headache is a brain tumour, we're treating the symptom, not the cause.

I've listened to radio news all day today go on about gun crime, with not one mention about the cause of that crime.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

That's nihlistic.

Extreme event? It is a preventable death.



Vandave said:


> Do we regulate by extreme events? For every child killed by a gun, I'll find 20 examples of children killed while running across the street. Maybe we should ban streets instead.


And regarding your accusation about me being selfish. Another ehMac member, Gnatsum, knows me personally, and he will tell you that I ABSOLUTELY HATE driving and will NOT drive unless necessary. He will also tell you that I drive like a dying grandma.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

If your kid can access your handgun (or rifle, or pepper spray, or certain air powered pellet guns, or bow and arrow, etc) anywhere in your house, you've broken the law, will be charged with a criminal offense, and by the time the afternoon is over, all your guns will be at the police station.

If he can access ammunition you've broken the law again.

Canada did not set about defining exactly what brand and model of safe, gun lock, padlock, etc is allowable. Instead, they wrote the law such that if I can break into it, or if your kid found the handgun, it's not secure and dad's going to be charged.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Sounds good, but wouldn't it be better if the guns WEREN'T THERE in the first place?

The handguns aren't needed for anyone except for law enforcing officers.

The state alone should have the monopoly of force. I just don't see any reason for anyone to have handguns to begin with.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

People keep talking about the right to own handguns, what happened to the right to LIVE for people like Kayla?

Honestly, nobody believes that less handguns in general is better than more?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by _"even"_ GratuitousApplesauce, or by "get it" for that matter, but I have to agree with those that say that a hand gun ban won't impact the gun crime problem much.
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> I've listened to radio news all day today go on about gun crime, with not one mention about the cause of that crime.


Yeah, sorry about the "even" bit, it was nothing personal. By "get it" I mean those that see the true ineffectiveness of this so called "ban". Your earlier post was very good with respect to some of the root causes of the recent (and on going) gun violence. I agree wholeheartedly!

As I mentioned, this is really an election "smoke and mirrors" ploy made to appeal to the urban dweller and specifically the Toronto electorate. Those who belong to clubs or participate in shooting competitions, remain at status quo. 

Whether or not this ban will actually become legislated, is yet to be seen. Aside from the idiotic ban, there are some good things being put forth, like a special RCMP unit to deal with illegal guns and more effort into stopping the illegal smuggling. I would support that effort.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I'm sure Big Brother will get onto the cranial adjustments soon enough. Since I don't agree with what's good for me, I sure could use some 're-education'.


What do you mean "re"?

(send over an easy lob...)


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> ...It's a right to own a hand gun? Don't kid me. A weapon is a weapon and **** happens. Kids can sneak into your room, put the gun in his napsack and bring it to school. How convenient it is for criminals to break into your house and take the gun. It's free for them and untraceble (well... It'll just trace back to the law abiding, "responsible" citizen)....


That's the most insightful post in this whole thread. It's too bad that those who think they "get it" don't consider such inconvenient realities.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> What do you mean "re"?
> 
> (send over an easy lob...)


I mean the brainwashing didn't work on me the first time round. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> That's nihlistic.
> 
> Extreme event? It is a preventable death.


So the goal is to eliminate preventable deaths. OK, let's take that to its logical conclusion. We would have to outlaw pretty much everything. Water can make people drown, electricity can shock you, cars can run you over, dogs can bite you, insects can give you diseases,et....



DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> And regarding your accusation about me being selfish. Another ehMac member, Gnatsum, knows me personally, and he will tell you that I ABSOLUTELY HATE driving and will NOT drive unless necessary. He will also tell you that I drive like a dying grandma.


That's fine for you, but it sure isn't the case for most people who support gun legislation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> I just don't see any reason for anyone to have handguns to begin with.


No, you don't see a reason for you to have guns so you force your opinion on everybody else.

There are all sorts of reasons for people to want handguns. Some like to shoot at the range, some like it for home protection, some like them to collect.... I am sure there are dozens of other reasons. Who am I to judge what people want to do?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

FORCE my opinion on everybody? Man, READ your reasons and THINK of better ones. You think those reasons REALLY justify for people to keep handguns around?

Handguns for LEISURE is valued over all of the preventable and innocent deaths?

Regarding your earlier post about banning everything... as I've stated many times... PREVENTABLE deaths. If we need water to survive, why the hell would we ban that? AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED HANDGUNS TO SURVIVE.

If little Kayla's parents are reading your so-called reasons, they would be very upset. BUT I don't think you really care what they think, since you would value leisure over lives of innocent people like little Kayla.



Vandave said:


> No, you don't see a reason for you to have guns so you force your opinion on everybody else.
> 
> There are all sorts of reasons for people to want handguns. Some like to shoot at the range, some like it for home protection, some like them to collect.... I am sure there are dozens of other reasons. Who am I to judge what people want to do?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Handguns for LEISURE is valued over all of the preventable and innocent deaths?


Have a look at causes of death in this country. Guns aren't even on the top 10 list.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health36.htm?sdi=death

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health30a.htm?sdi=mortality

There are soooo many things that rank above gun deaths. For example:

57000 died of heart disease... People in this country eat crappy food for LEISURE all the time... Ban fast food.

8600 died of unintentional injuries... Accidents happen due to LEISURE all the time... Better ban going outside your bubble.

All sorts of car accidents happen during LEISURE (going for a ride, going to the lake, entertainment, etc..) all the time. Should we ban driving for everything but emergency and necessary activities?

And then consider that at least half of gun deaths are criminals killing criminals. 

When you put things into perspective, it seems we are over reacting in a big way here. We regulate guns very strictly in Canada, and that's fine. But don't take away the right of somebody to buy something they want.

Here is another good reference:

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp

Puts things into perspective.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

So when deaths caused by gun violence is among the top 10, THEN it is officially a problem?

Lives are lives. The life of ONE is JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE LIVES OF 10 Billion.

What if the victim is, God forbid and please forgive me for saying this, YOU. How would you feel?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Sorry for digging up your previous post, but I skipped page 2-5 completely before I made my first post in this thread.



Vandave said:


> Our society is so concerned about the dumbest things. JUST LET PEOPLE LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES.


I see you do value personal freedom over everything else. It isn't as simple as letting people live their lives, but HANDGUNS AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

When I'm minding my own business at home or on the street, I don't know about you, but I don't want to be transformed into a walking-beehive...


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Lives are lives. The life of ONE is JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE LIVES OF 10 Billion.


Oops, I'm forcing my own opinion on everybody again


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Sorry for digging up your previous post, but I skipped page 2-5 completely before I made my first post in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't get it. We are a part of this world and our activities have an effect on others. It doesn't matter what you do. We all effect other people. Nobody is invisible and nobody has a non-effect. Something you do today or tomorrow, or something you already did, could cause another human to die. Guess what, that's life. 

I could kill somebody accidently tomorrow by running them over (3055 deaths by cars). I could knock somebody over walking down the street (2866 deaths by accidental falls). I could sneeze and give somebody a cold (??? deaths).


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

I can't see what the point you're trying to make is...

Just because there's a good chance of people dying and many of them dying everyday, we shouldn't prevent it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> So when deaths caused by gun violence is among the top 10, THEN it is officially a problem?


When did I say it wasn't a problem? This problem concerns me very much.

There are better and effective ways of dealing with it. I would start with adding more police and having minimum sentences. Let's see what happens with that before we take away other people's freedoms.



DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Lives are lives. The life of ONE is JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE LIVES OF 10 Billion.


You can get all philisophical about this, but you can't escape the fact that s**t happens. Accidents happen. Live with it. You can't go around trying to avoid anything bad that could happen to you. 



DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> What if the victim is, God forbid and please forgive me for saying this, YOU. How would you feel?


Sucks to be me, but there are no guarantees in life, except death, taxes and Liberals forcing their views on others.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Is it THAT bad of an idea? Sure, you lefties will come up with thousands of reasons.
> It's a right to own a hand gun? Don't kid me. A weapon is a weapon and **** happens. Kids can sneak into your room, put the gun in his napsack and bring it to school. How convenient it is for criminals to break into your house and take the gun. It's free for them and untraceble (well... It'll just trace back to the law abiding, "responsible" citizen).
> 
> I don't know about you, but I think I will sleep better knowing there are less weapons out there. Especially hand guns and other concealible weapons. They are good for nothing and they should've been banned long ago.


You have a strange notion about the political orientations of people likely to support or oppose gun control. "Lefties" are people (like me) who support the NDP or the left wings of the major parties and are very likely to be strongly in favour of gun control. The people who want a gun in every car and bedside table are much more likely to be "righties" and to support the Conservatives (Republicans in the USA.) They generally believe that governments are untrustworthy, and that citizens should be armed to the teeth so they can launch a revolution if necessary. Us "lefties" think that this attitude is insane - thus the support for gun control.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Uh... Yeah.

Right. This is like playing guitar to a cow...

What do you mean philosophical??? How old are you? Do you have a child? Do you love anyone? Now imagine the one you love the most lost his/her life due to gun violence or whatever else reason. Would you still go "Oh, **** happens, sucks to be him/her"?????

It seems like you have no desire to prevent deaths.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Yea, sorry about that, I realized my mistake after I posted, but I dont edit my posts.

I meant the kind of people who value personal freedom greatly and dislike government control, like VanDave.



Gerbill said:


> You have a strange notion about the political orientations of people likely to support or oppose gun control. "Lefties" are people (like me) who support the NDP or the left wings of the major parties and are very likely to be strongly in favour of gun control. The people who want a gun in every car and beside table are much more likely to be "righties" and to support the Conservatives (Republicans in the USA.) They generally believe that governments are untrustworthy, and that citizens should be armed to the teeth so they can launch a revolution if necessary. Us "lefties" think that this attitude is insane - thus the support for gun control.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> You don't get it. We are a part of this world and our activities have an effect on others. It doesn't matter what you do. We all effect other people. Nobody is invisible and nobody has a non-effect. Something you do today or tomorrow, or something you already did, could cause another human to die. Guess what, that's life.
> 
> I could kill somebody accidently tomorrow by running them over (3055 deaths by cars). I could knock somebody over walking down the street (2866 deaths by accidental falls). I could sneeze and give somebody a cold (??? deaths).


I think the argument (I use this term loosely in this case) you are trying to make is that people die every day for reasons that have nothing to do with guns, so what's the big deal about guns. Do you honestly feel this is rational?

It would be more intelligent to use examples of things that combine significant inherent danger with minimal social benefit. Can you think of any?

While you are getting the old noggin warmed up, I'm curious about your opinion on something. There is a little boy in my daughter's grade with a peanut allergy. Trace amounts of peanut butter could kill him. The school bans peanut butter.

Now, peanut butter is a terrific food and most kids like it. Some kids could live on peanut butter and eat different sandwiches with much less enjoyment, even reluctantly. There are, undoubtedly, several kids who are suffering nutritionally due to this ban.

Is the school right?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Stop it Vandave, your being too damn logical here!

Banning handguns (with the current restrictions and regulations that exist today) will do diddly squat to solve the shooting sprees happening in the big cities. Its a SOCIAL/MORAL problem. Melani nailed it! A person of sound mind and morals could have the entire Camp Petewawa arsenal at his disposal and never harm a soul.

The Libs are playing on the ignorance of the electorate on this issue and from some of the posts I'm reading, there's lots of it. The gang bangers that are wrecking havoc in our city streets didn't purchase their guns at Canadian Tire or Walmart and they'll continue to purchase them long after Joe target shooter has had to hand his over to be destroyed.

They may as well ban "Gangsta" Rap music while their at it. As useless as that would be, it may come a heck of a lot closer to addressing the real problem.

One observation. I've heard many oldtimers say they'll never register their firearms because they fear its just a government ploy to confiscate them. Listening to the gleeful liberal support for this useless idea, I see why they think that way.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Uh... Yeah.
> 
> Right. This is like playing guitar to a cow...
> 
> ...


Have you read anything I have written???

I want to prevent gun deaths as much as anybody. I am just a little more realistic about it than the lefties who can't look past the rhetoric. The Vancouver police say 90% of the guns they seize are illegally imported. Think about that for a minute. Let it sink in. Prosecuting innocent people isn't going to stop that. 

For some reason, lefties don't want to prosecute the bad guys. They don't want more money for the police. Whenever the right brings this up, you say we are nuts and want to create a police state. If we say people should go to jail for five years, you say minimum sentences are unconstitutional. When we say sex offenders should be registered, you say we are taking the rights of people away.

And then you say, we don't care about people and worry about deaths. Huh..???

The only MP who keeps pushing criminal issues is Randy White. Look at all the drinking drivers that run people over and take off. They end up getting rewarded for this because the police can't prove they were drunk. Randy White tries to pass Carley's Law and he gets labeled as a wingnut. Where were you when this came up? I talked about it on here. I didn't see your concern.

If your real intention was to prevent accidental deaths, then there are so many things that are higher on the list than guns. Why not work on those issues first?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

nxnw said:


> It would be more intelligent to use examples of things that combine significant inherent danger with minimal social benefit. Can you think of any?
> 
> While you are getting the old noggin warmed up, I'm curious about your opinion on something. There is a little boy in my daughter's grade with a peanut allergy. Trace amounts of peanut butter could kill him. The school bans peanut butter.
> 
> ...


Banning peanut butter in the school is the right thing to do. But the Liberals are planning to ban peanut butter from the entire country while hoods will still be eating peanut butter by the gallon. Good luck with that.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> It would be more intelligent to use examples of things that combine significant inherent danger with minimal social benefit. Can you think of any?


I already did. 3500 deaths by car. How often do most people use a car for leisure. My bet is at least 25%, if not 50%. Any way you slice it, it is greater in number than homicide by firearm. 

What's the social benefit of stuffing your face with Big Macs (10s of thousands of cardivascular deaths)?



nxnw said:


> While you are getting the old noggin warmed up, I'm curious about your opinion on something. There is a little boy in my daughter's grade with a peanut allergy. Trace amounts of peanut butter could kill him. The school bans peanut butter.
> 
> Now, peanut butter is a terrific food and most kids like it. Some kids could live on peanut butter and eat different sandwiches with much less enjoyment, even reluctantly. There are, undoubtedly, several kids who are suffering nutritionally due to this ban.
> 
> Is the school right?


Yes, I agree with the school. You can still eat peanut butter at home or you can eat some alternative.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Why must we work on those issues first?

Are numbers that important?

Just because the number of deaths caused by guns are low, it means they shouldn't be dealt with first before the others?

They can just deal with this issue right now. 

There would be immediate benefits to banning handguns. However, those benefits you will NOT BE ABLE TO NOTICE, because we're preventing the **** that might happen. Is it worth it banning handguns for that? YES. Ban the guns and AT LEAST there wouldn't be another victim like Kayla. AT LEAST, there will not be another 6 year old stealing his uncle's handgun and taking it to school with him. AT LEAST, we wouldn't have to worry about criminals obtaining their weapons from "responsible" citizens.

There are absolutely no harm to banning handguns, so why not?

I bet VanDave will come up with dozens of "harms" that could be caused by banning handguns eh? Can't collect them... can't shoot them at a range... can't use them for home protection (Rifles are suitable for that purpose and people have been using that to protect their livestocks on farms. The difference is that they are inconcealible, so you can't take it out to public)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> So when deaths caused by gun violence is among the top 10, THEN it is officially a problem?
> 
> Lives are lives. The life of ONE is JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE LIVES OF 10 Billion.
> 
> What if the victim is, God forbid and please forgive me for saying this, YOU. How would you feel?


And what if you died of cardiovascular disease, lung problems, cancer, car accidents, etc... wouldn't you say... Why in the hell did the Liberal Party spend 1 billion plus on a registry when they could have saved hundreds of lives by putting the money into health care?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Why must we work on those issues first?
> 
> Are numbers that important?


Yes the numbers are important. We don't have unlimited capital and labour to prevent all deaths in our country. We can either spend our time, money and effort on the "top 10" that will have a significant and measurable impact, or we can spend money on an issue in which a relatively small number of innocent people die and which regulation will have questionable effect.

What did the Registry do to reduce gun violence in Toronto and Van? Violence went up with increased legislation. What makes you think more legislation and regulation is the solution?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Anyway, I've said all that I could say on this topic. I'm exhausted.

VanDave, you're still not getting the point.

If we can prevent the death of one person, why should we not?

If banning peanut butter from school could keep one child from dying of deadly allergies, why not?

If banning handguns could keep one person from dying, why not?

You see, banning peanut butter from school is really insignificant, because other kids can enjoy peanut butter at home or consume alternatives, that makes the school right. But the major difference between peanut butter and handgun is that, handguns have absolutely NO contribution to humanity. Peanut butter is delicious, but handguns kill and... basically, that's all that it's "good" for.

The right to live outweighs any other right, including the right to bear arms, in my opinion.

Bearing arms for the sake of leisure is definitely not a legitimate reason to keep handguns from being banned.

If handguns are not the source of the gun violence problem, I STILL don't see the reason to keep it from being banned, as I've said, it has NO GOOD PURPOSE other than to kill.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Yes the numbers are important. We don't have unlimited capital and labour to prevent all deaths in our country.


You don't need much money to ban something, certainly not labour.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Re: Kayla
I took the bait and researched the story, but only on the web. Sources were: Salon, WXYZ Detroit, the local paper in Flint, and Government of Canada. It's a long one, and there is very little here to inspire anything except tears.

I certainly hope this isn't the norm in Canada, and in some ways we can say we've already addressed some of the issues. But, here goes (you should remember Kayla from the film "Bowling For Columbine" by Michael Moore). Errors and omissions are my fault, corrections welcome.

The Morning of School:
Kayla Rolland, aged 6, was shot in the neck and died while attending the first grade at a public school in Flint, Michigan in 2000. The shot was fired by a 6-year old classmate.

The Gun:
The weapon was a .32 calibre semi-automatic handgun. Law enforcement generally refer to this type of handgun as a "Saturday Night Special". Handgun specialists usually refer to semi-automatic handguns as "auto pistols" or "auto loaders" but don't confuse that phrase with an automatic weapon; it's not. An automatic weapon is a "machine gun". The gun was stolen from an unknown location.

How he got the gun:
Apparently, he was given the gun to play with, or he was shown the gun. " ... Authorities allege he [Jamelle Andre James] gave the boy access to the handgun used in the shooting. ..." It was kept in a shoe box under the blankets of the bed of Jamelle Andre James, aged 19 and a friend of the boy's uncle. The uncle, a Sir Marcus Winfrey, aged 22, was in custody of the boy, his 5-year old sister, and an 8-year old brother. All five lived in the same residence.

How the gun got in the house:
Either Sir Marcus Winfrey, Jamelle Andre James, or both, bought the handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun from Robert Lee Morris III, 19, who had either stolen the guns himself or bought them "hot" and resold them to Winfrey or James. All three admit to Police they knew the guns were stolen. The shotgun was found in the home after the shooting. It was loaded.

Why the uncle?
Because mom, Tamarla Owens, was a cocaine addict, and was nowhere to be found at the time. Her husband, Dedric Owens was easier to find. He was in Federal Prison for drug trafficking. He was released on February 7, 2005. Tamarla and Dedric are currently in the middle of divorce proceedings.

What happened to the kids?
The boy, his older brother and younger sister were placed in the custody of an aunt after the shooting. Tamarla lost custody of the two boys, but has since regained the custody of the daughter. Both boys are reported to require "increasing amounts of supervision". They are now 12 and 14.

What about Kayla's family?
You really have to dig to find good news in this story, and all I can say is no amount of digging seems to be enough. Kayla's mother, Veronica McQueen, 35, lost custody of her two surviving children in 2003. A judge ruled she failed to protect her teenage daughter from Michael McQueen, her husband, who was sentenced to three years probation for sexually assaulting the eldest daughter in 2004. She sees her children regularly, and has filed for divorce.

Was this preventable?
It certainly seem so. That the boys were living in a crack house with known felons and both natural parents absent was known to Social Workers. The boy had experienced trauma of some kind, and was enrolled in a school program for children with "psychological issues". The therapy may or may not have been helping, but it certainly didn't stop him from stabbing a classmate with a pencil; and later shooting another in the neck while screaming " I hate you."

At the school, first graders are taught a gun safety course, featuring a comic book. All the students had taken that class at the time of the shooting.

That one I still have a hard time getting a grip on. To be honest, I'm speechless. If anyone seriously suggests we teach 6-year olds handgun safety in the classroom, I propose we turn the whole country into a maximum security psychiatric ward, where the warders are monkeys trained to poke us with sticks, because that's what we will deserve.

What the law did
News stories can be found on the web from the day of the shooting. They tell us that charges were laid:
Sir Marcus Winfrey, 22 ("the uncle"); Jamelle Andre James, 19 ("the idiot") and Robert Lee Morris III, 19 ("the thief") were all charged with possessing stolen firearms, and " using marijuana while in possession of firearms ". I gave 'em the nicknames. Also, the idiot was charged with involuntary manslaughter, for giving the kid the gun.

Afterwards, the info is a bit sketchy, a situation I'm accustomed to with the US legal system. There's lots of big talk about how many years they face and so forth, but not only are the actual sentences often low, they let people out of jail faster than you can say "good behavior." In any case, the first two charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and up to $ 250,000 each in fines.

The idiot also faces up to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter. This is typical of the kind of sentences reported in the press when **** happens in America, and especially when people are outraged, and these were reported in news stories shortly after the shooting in 2000.

Sure enough, I was unable to find any information on sentences for the gun or guns + dope charges at all; which is not to say there was none, we simply don't know what sentence, harsh or lenient, they received. The idiot, the man who started it all, and the one who faced the most serious charges of stolen guns, having stolen guns and dope at the same time, and what is in essence a murder charge, pled no contest and served two and one half years in prison, followed by probation. He was discharged from probation on February 18, 2005, and has served his sentence completely.

Lessons for Canadians:
The gun could be found in Canada only if smuggled. The "Saturday Night Special" has no legitimate use beyond concealed carry; the barrels are too short for accurate shooting. All .32 calibre auto pistols are prohibited weapons, and there is no legal means to possess one here, including as part of a collection.

The list of charges would be longer and more serious in Canada. The charge of Criminal Negligence Causing Death is equivalent to Involuntary Manslaughter (they are used interchangeably in criminal jurisdictions worldwide).

The sentencing guidelines are clear, however:
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

In other words, life in prison with no chance of parole for four years. And remember a life sentence is just that: they never have to let you out of jail; being eligible for a parole hearing means just that and nothing more.

We demand that you admit your guilt, show remorse, attend in good faith all the programs to deal with whatever demons got you so screwed up in the first place, and maintain good behavior. Fail to do any one of those (like Colin Thatcher or perhaps most tellingly, David Milgaard) and you simply never get paroled. If you are paroled you will be on parole until you die, and will spend the rest of your life under supervision; failure to maintain peace means your parole is revoked.

As a final note, nearly every single adult who are supposed to be caring for the children in this tragic story failed these children somehow; from the social workers to the child molesters and drug addicts; this is not, ultimately, a story about guns.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gordguide said:


> Re: Kayla
> I took the bait and researched the story, but only on the web. Sources were: Salon, WXYZ Detroit, the local paper in Flint, and Government of Canada. It's a long one, and there is very little here to inspire anything except tears.


Thanks for taking the time to do the research.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> If we can prevent the death of one person, why should we not?
> 
> If banning peanut butter from school could keep one child from dying of deadly allergies, why not?
> 
> ...


The peanut butter one more makes Vandave's point than yours. Some people are so sensitive to it that you eating it at home threatens them. 

If your standard is the 'keep one person from dying' standard and you truly look at the full extension of all your actions, you'll be paralyzed to immobility. So many of the things we use derive from products that have some deaths in their production therefore you absolutely should not use: wood, gasoline, plastic, etc...Using the basic needs argument, you use wood to build/heat your home, but you shouldn't do anything else because it is not needed. Stop putting yourself ahead of others?

Society needs reasonable standards (wide open concept) but I think the 1 vs 10 billion statement, as offhand as it was, says lots. That's not a reasonable standard. And infringing on another's entertainment, as strange as it sounds, is a serious consideration in determining 'reasonable'. That is part of any modern democracy. 

Just because you and even the majority derive nothing from handguns doesn't mean that other opinions are invalid, and it doesn't mean that looking at the cause and effect of the problem can be ignored. Each individual and each nation will end up in a slightly different place on this issue.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Just because you and even the majority derive nothing from handguns doesn't mean that other opinions are invalid, and it doesn't mean that looking at the cause and effect of the problem can be ignored. Each individual and each nation will end up in a slightly different place on this issue.


I'm joining this discussion late...

Perhaps some of you can enlighten us as to the societal benefits to handgun ownership. 

While I have fired many handguns from 9mm Ruger to various large caliber revolvers (including a black powder muzzle loader that would scare the sh*t out of anyone nearby... lots of smoke and fire) I have to say that I see no reason why a handgun ban would negatively affect Canadian society (as a whole) in any way.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Perhaps some of you can enlighten us as to the societal benefits to handgun ownership.


I think this demonstrates one of the points Vandave has been making. It can be seen from two perspectives, that occur to me at the moment.

1) No substantial benefit, BUT that is not the test for limiting people's choices. The starting point for our society is free choice, after which proof (ever advancing concept) is used to limit that freedom for the greater good (taxes, speed limits, etc...). Vague concepts, but the basic recognition of the starting point is important, even if it doesn't change your final opinion.

Alternatively,

2) Free choice for others is a benefit that is being ignored/undervalued by many. Whether it balances the costs is subjective, but can make interesting discussion, as many have done so. Placing zero or near zero value on free choice isn't too interesting a discussion.

This is vague philosophy, but it appears we've come to that point. Unfortunately this kind of discussion is best served with beer, so we'll have to coordinate some sort of drink and post system...unless someone wants to take that away too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I think this demonstrates one of the points Vandave has been making.


I'm still trying to see the point he is making - frankly I was hoping for some logic or at least intelligence from this discussion.
What I have seen is akin to grade 3 debate.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

According to the National on CBC last night, the Liberal plan is not banning ALL handguns. Target shooters are still free to own handguns. Gun collectors just have to get reregistered as target shooters and they can keep their guns. Hand guns have been banned in Canada since 1934/37(I don't remember what the exact year was).

The Liberal plan only brings a little good to the table... more cops to fight the cross border influx of illegal weapons. Even that is a far too little and far too late.



http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1141 said:


> Investing in law enforcement, including $225 million over five years for an RCMP Advanced Community Safety and Rapid Enforcement Team, $10 million a year for 10 years to increase the number of graduating RCMP officers, $50 million over five years for a Rural Community Safety Plan to provide resources for crime prevention initiatives in communities with less that 100,000 residents, and investments to stem the illegal smuggling of firearms into Canada.


 Vague to say the least... kind of reminds me of the firearm registry boondoggle.

It's a fine piece of electioneering by the Liberals to get more votes from scared Toronto voters. Kind of reminds me of Bush and all his scare tactics about terrorists.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm still trying to see the point he is making - frankly I was hoping for some logic or at least intelligence from this discussion.
> What I have seen is akin to grade 3 debate.


What you wrote above is not helping.

Edit: My comment is ment tongue-in-cheek AS.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> According to the National on CBC last night, the Liberal plan is not banning ALL handguns. Target shooters are still free to own handguns. Gun collectors just have to get reregistered as target shooters and they can keep their guns. Hand guns have been banned in Canada since 1934/37(I don't remember what the exact year was).
> 
> The Liberal plan only brings a little good to the table... more cops to fight the cross border influx of illegal weapons. Even that is a far too little and far too late.
> 
> ...


Now that the plan is clearer, I think you sum it up well.
Too bad Vandave had a knee jerk reaction.
Now the "real" debate can begin....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> I
> 2) Free choice for others is a benefit that is being ignored/undervalued by many. Whether it balances the costs is subjective, but can make interesting discussion, as many have done so. Placing zero or near zero value on free choice isn't too interesting a discussion.


Free choice makes the assumption that we live in a free society. We know that society imposes rules upon individuals and groups that ultimately curtail freedoms. The alternative being of course anarchy.

Now most of us agree to live by these rules (well a certain amount of them anyway). These rules are put in place to establish safety, equity and fairness that allow the society to function in some sembelance of efficency, peace and tranquility.

At issue here is that some people feel that the safety of society (in general) will be increased if we curtail the freedom of some individuals from owning handguns. If we look at the stats (the best numbers I could find were 2001).

_"firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany. In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,348 in the United States.'_

This comes from two sources...

United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001-2002).

And

WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.

Based on the 2001 populaion of these countries we get the following numbers (I had to throw these into Excel because I wanted to see the numbers for myself)...

Country, Population, Death Rate, Death Rate/100 000

Japan, 127000000, 56, 0.000000441, 0.04
Great Britan, 50100000, 96, 0.000001916, 0.19
New Zealand, 3700000, 6, 0.000001622, 0.16
Germany, 82400000, 331, 0.000004017, 0.40
Canada, 30000000, 168, 0.000005600, 0.56

United States, 281000000, 11348, 0.000040384, 4.04

Clearly increased gun control laws lead to fewer gun related fatalities. Gun laws in German, UK and Japan are far more restrictive than here in Canada yet even with their higher populations they still have a much lower rate than we do.

This looks like a pretty sound argument in favour of tighter gun control laws.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now that the plan is clearer, I think you sum it up well.
> Too bad Vandave had a knee jerk reaction.
> Now the "real" debate can begin....


How is my response knee jerk? I heard what Martin said yesterday... something to the effect that handguns have no legitimate purpose. I don't care what his plan says. Martin has flip flopped on so many issues and based on his comment above, I think he has a hidden agenda.

You might be interested to know that I don't own any firearms. This issue affects me and all of us because it is an attack on personal freedoms. What goes around comes around and one day it will affect you as well.

Let's do the math (2004):

172 gun deaths in Canada
65 deaths by handgun
44 of the handgun deaths are unregistered 
19 of the handgun deaths are registered 

Now take the 19 and reduce it by a percentage to reflect gangbangers shooting each other and you are left with between 10 and 15 deaths by registered handguns (being generous). Of that, I wonder what is accidental? 1, 2???

Now think about how effective regulation is going to be in filtering homicidal people out. If you want to kill your spouse, you have all sorts of options (e.g. long gun, knife). If they don't use a handgun, they will use something else.

So, if getting more stringent on handguns (whatever Martine means by that) was 100% perfectly effective (which its not), how many lives could be saved? It won't even be statistically signficant.

Don't tell me this isn't a political agenda being forced from one segment of society onto another.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> You might be interested to know that I don't own any firearms. This issue affects me and all of us because it is an attack on personal freedoms. What goes around comes around and one day it will affect you as well.


As I had just said... and will say again.

Free choice makes the assumption that we live in a free society. We know that society imposes rules upon individuals and groups that ultimately curtail freedoms. The alternative being of course anarchy.

Now most of us agree to live by these rules (well a certain amount of them anyway). These rules are put in place to establish safety, equity and fairness that allow the society to function in some sembelance of efficency, peace and tranquility.

At issue here is that some people feel that the safety of society (in general) will be increased if we curtail the freedom of some individuals from owning handguns. 

This happens all the time. This is why we have speed limits and building codes and the CSA.

Do you feel the same way about speeding limits or seat belt laws?

PS. What the hell does... _"What goes around comes around and one day it will affect you as well. _ mean?





Vandave said:


> Let's do the math (2004):
> 
> 172 gun deaths in Canada
> 65 deaths by handgun
> ...


Wait a sec...

65 deaths by handgun
44 are unregistered
19 are registered

44+19=63

65-63=2

So what happned to the 2 that were neither registered or unregistered?

I'm bad at math... but if we are going to use math in an argument lets get the numbers right.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> How is my response knee jerk? I heard what Martin said yesterday... something to the effect that handguns have no legitimate purpose. I don't care what his plan says. Martin has flip flopped on so many issues and based on his comment above, I think he has a hidden agenda.


You reacted to rumours without even hearing or reading what the package contained. 
And now, you admit to not even caring because you "think" he has a secret agenda. 
So what it the conspiracy? Or to you prefer to spout nonsense?


Vandave said:


> This issue affects me and all of us because it is an attack on personal freedoms. What goes around comes around and one day it will affect you as well.


Bill C-74 has to potential to affect us more deeply as other decisions. You should direct your energies there IMO.


Vandave said:


> Let's do the math (2004):
> 
> 172 gun deaths in Canada
> 65 deaths by handgun
> ...





> The Public Safety Department says spousal homicides involving firearms in Canada have plunged dramatically since the federal gun-control program and registry were launched in 1995.
> The number of spousal homicides involving firearms -- the vast majority of which involve men killing women -- has declined overall by 36 per cent.
> The overall number of firearm murders decreased to 161 in 2003 from 176 in 1995, the records show.
> Gun-related suicides have dropped significantly since the firearms program and registry were introduced, down 28.5 per cent from 911 in 1995 to 651 in 2001, the latest figures available for that category.


So I would be safe to imagine the ban will decrease those numbers even more...




Vandave said:


> So, if getting more stringent on handguns (whatever Martine means by that) was 100% perfectly effective (which its not), how many lives could be saved? It won't even be statistically signficant.


No it will likely not be - no one argued about that. I think many have pointed that it is a political move. 


Vandave said:


> Don't tell me this isn't a political agenda being forced from one segment of society onto another.


Aren't all decision like that? 
It a choice of the ones that you are willing to live with. 
To me, the Harper parade seems worse and a lot more intrusive.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> As I had just said... and will say again.
> 
> Free choice makes the assumption that we live in a free society. We know that society imposes rules upon individuals and groups that ultimately curtail freedoms. The alternative being of course anarchy.
> 
> ...


What I mean by "what goes around comes around" is that if somebody loses their freedoms today, you might lose yours tomorrow. When anybody loses freedom, it affects all of us.

I agree with speed limits and seat belt laws. There is clear evidence that seatbelts save lives. I am less believing in speed limits. It's bad drivers and intersections where most car accidents happen, rather than on the freeway at high speed.



da_jonesy said:


> Wait a sec...
> 
> 65 deaths by handgun
> 44 are unregistered
> ...


I got these numbers from a government web source. I guess the missing numbers fall into the unknown category.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No it will likely not be - no one argued about that. I think many have pointed that it is a political move.


OK, you admit that, but above you say it will reduce numbers even more. You can't have it both ways.

There is a concept in business management that you can't manage something that you can't measure. Think about it for a minute.... It's a cool concept and can be quite powerful...

If we can't measure the effect of increased gun legislation on saving lives, we really aren't managing it. 

Look, I am not advocating no legislation. I like the idea of waiting periods, mandatory training, proper gun storage and so on. Obviously, you have to filter who can get a gun and who can't and make sure people are responsible. All the headlines said Martin wanted a handgun ban. His comments backed that up. I see that as taking away freedoms.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> OK, you admit that, but above you say it will reduce numbers even more. You can't have it both ways.


Gun reductions have reduced gun deaths. 
Reducing them even more will likely lead to less gun deaths.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> This looks like a pretty sound argument in favour of tighter gun control laws.


In the U.S. The data doesn't indicate much about Canada's situation given how close the numbers are and the multitude of other factors.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> In the U.S. The data doesn't indicate much about Canada's situation given how close the numbers are and the multitude of other factors.


How can you say that? Look at the numbers. Unless you dispute the numbers... there is clearly a link between gun legislation and reduced gun fatalities.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The big gap between the U.S. and everybody else is telling, the other gaps are not so informative.

The non-U.S. examples are quite close and, Japan for example, has generally lower crime than most nations. So you'd need to get historical series and a clear analysis of the different gun regulations and whether fatalities are reduced or just gun fatalities in each country and...well, that's a thread in itself: 'How to analyse complex social issues with statistics.'

The statistics only get you so far (U.S. badly needs more gun control), but do warrant further inspection.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:



> Look, I am not advocating no legislation. I like the idea of waiting periods, mandatory training, proper gun storage and so on. Obviously, you have to filter who can get a gun and who can't and make sure people are responsible. All the headlines said Martin wanted a handgun ban. His comments backed that up. I see that as taking away freedoms.


Look we have already established that in a society certain freedoms have to be curtailed for the purposes of safety and the greater public good. That is why we have building codes, speed limits, seat belt laws and things like the Canadian Standards Association.

How is establishing a Handgun ban any different from establishing a building code or seat belt law?

You can't argue against this point.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> How is establishing a Handgun ban any different from establishing a building code or seat belt law?
> 
> You can't argue against this point.


Are you serious? This point can't be argued why?

Handgun ban (real one, not the Liberal one) completely eliminates the choice of an activity.

Building codes and seat belt laws don't, they are akin to restrictions on purchasing, transporting and using handguns. You can still build and drive, just not in the exact way and place that you may want and your background matters. Clearly different.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> How can you say that? Look at the numbers. Unless you dispute the numbers... there is clearly a link between gun legislation and reduced gun fatalities.


Correlation isn't causation... Think about what that means.

Reaching the conclusion that you did on that data is akin to this rationale.... 90% of prisoners are smokers, therefore, smoking makes you a criminal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Correlation isn't causation... Think about what that means.


I wish more people would, but we aren't likely to see that.



Vandave said:


> 90% of prisoners are smokers, therefore, smoking makes you a criminal.


Uh oh...where are my breathmints?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Are you serious? This point can't be argued why?
> 
> Handgun ban (real one, not the Liberal one) completely eliminates the choice of an activity.
> 
> Building codes and seat belt laws don't, they are akin to restrictions on purchasing, transporting and using handguns. You can still build and drive, just not in the exact way and place that you may want and your background matters. Clearly different.


Absolutely I am serious.

There are plenty of banned and restricted items and activities because they are contrary to the public good. Explosives (specifically semtex, dynamite, etc...) are banned in Canada. 

So unless you can justify why anyone in Canada can run around with a hand grenade or a stick of dynamite then you cannot are this point. You can try and argue it, but you will not be right.

We ban plenty of activities as well because they are not in the public interest or good.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

A good read: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/letters_gunban.html



> The key line in the Liberal plan to ban handguns is as follows: "Legitimate target shooters who meet requirements would be eligible for an exemption to the handgun ban."
> 
> This was taken directly from the Liberal Party'sweb sitee. So basically, pretty much anyone who currently owns a legal handgun in Canada will be able to keep their guns. So what's the point? The Liberals sure do like to waste billions on gun programs, don't they?
> 
> —Brian Burke | Bealton | Ontario





> Go to Jane and Finch, or the projects in Scarberia, or Moss Park, or any number of other places in Toronto, and it will take you exactly five seconds to figure out why that city and its environs has experienced an increase in violence.
> 
> Warehoused people – and especially warehoused adolescents tend not to play nice in the sand box. The answer lies in urban design, recreation facilities, green space, and job creation; all provincial and by extension municipal responsibilities.
> 
> ...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Correlation isn't causation... Think about what that means.
> 
> Reaching the conclusion that you did on that data is akin to this rationale.... 90% of prisoners are smokers, therefore, smoking makes you a criminal.


That is bull**** in this context unless you want to argue that Americans are in general more violent than those in other countries. That point is utterly useless in this debate. 

Please why don't you show numbers that indicate the opposite? Where lax gun laws and increased gun ownership has lead to a decrease in the number of handgun related deaths.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> I wish more people would, but we aren't likely to see that.


We won't in the context of this argument as it neither address the issue of what public good arises from increased gun ownership or how does society suffer from a ban on handguns.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I don't find the correlations between gun ownership and death rates from firearms to be particularly useful. We all know that the US has a huge problem with guns. After that, I really don't see much in the numbers we can use to show that there will be any benefit to a complete ban on handguns, given what I feel is a rather responsible regimen for ownership and control we have in Canada.

Japan, 127000000, 56, 0.000000441, 0.04

Japan is perhaps best described as what we could expect if pigs could fly. They are an island, sharing borders with no-one, let alone the largest storehouse of private handguns on Earth. But, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Japan not only prohibits gun ownership, they have never allowed it. Before the 20th century, guns were banned not just from the citizenship, but from anyone. Police, the Army, whatever. The only time they did have large scale weapons, they lost the war and were occupied; all guns were collected and destroyed. None of these situations can apply to Canada. Japan has fewer firearms than any nation you could mention, and the natural advantages to keep it that way. Yet, 56 people died from them in the year cited.

It's an impossible scenario for Canada. We will never get there. Let's try, at a minimum, to limit our options to those grounded in reality.

Great Britan, 50100000, 96, 0.000001916, 0.19
New Zealand, 3700000, 6, 0.000001622, 0.16

Islands, both. We will never be able to control our border like either of these two could. New Zealand has the added advantage of remoteness. As for the rest, our gun laws are remarkably similar to Great Britain and have been on the books roughly as long. Again, it's unlikely the UK would seem so successful if they shared a border with the US.

Germany, 82400000, 331, 0.000004017, 0.40
Canada, 30000000, 168, 0.000005600, 0.56

Germany and Canada are probably examples of what one could reasonably expect in a free, democratic nation with rule of law, gun control, and real borders (ie land, not water). The major difference between the two is Canada has much, much higher gun ownership than Germany, but there is not a corresponding difference in death rates. (It seems to me there are more than 30 million people in Canada, by the way).

I don't see what these figures prove, if anything. One could make a good argument that we are probably already at what we could expect as a minimum.

We should be spending our time and energy insuring that the issues facing the worst neighborhoods in Toronto don't deteriorate to the point they have in Flint. This straw man attack on handguns is just spinning our wheels. In the meantime, things get worse where it really matters.

I'm particularly alarmed by what I'm reading today in the media, where upon closer inspection Mr Martin seems to have proposed basically nothing at all. Gotta love it when a politician pisses off both sides of an issue. The mind boggles. Mr Martin seems determined to lose this election after failing to lose the last one. Must be the Peter Principle at work, I guess.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That point is utterly useless in this debate.
> 
> Please why don't you show numbers that indicate the opposite? Where lax gun laws and increased gun ownership has lead to a decrease in the number of handgun related deaths.


When I think 'useless in this debate', I guess I think of something else.

Not the opposite you are looking for, but how about British gun crimes going up after their handgun ban? If correlation = causation then...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

gordguide said:


> Germany and Canada are probably examples of what one could reasonably expect in a free, democratic nation with rule of law, gun control, and real borders (ie land, not water). The major difference between the two is Canada has much, much higher gun ownership than Germany, but there is not a corresponding difference in death rates. (It seems to me there are more than 30 million people in Canada, by the way).


There is a 16% difference. Which is substantial enough, and I will grant you that your argument is better than most. 

I suppose I am still looking for the net benefit to society that supports continued handgun ownership here in Canada (I'm not talking about hunting rifles, I'm talking about handguns).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Great post Gordguide...Gord's guiding us with real analysis not intellectual casualty by causality?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej and Vandave...

Your arguments against a ban detract from the larger issue at hand.

Please feel free to provide arguments that show that a handgun ban will provide a *detriment* to the public safety of Canadians.

I think that the burden of proof here needs to reside on showing all of us why handguns are a good thing for Canada.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I think that the burden of proof here needs to reside on showing all of us why handguns are a good thing for Canada.


Precisely where I disagree with you, and summarized very concisely. Excellent job, certainly much better than my try:



Confusing Beejese said:


> I think this demonstrates one of the points Vandave has been making. It can be seen from two perspectives, that occur to me at the moment.
> 
> 1) No substantial benefit, BUT that is not the test for limiting people's choices. The starting point for our society is free choice, after which proof (ever advancing concept) is used to limit that freedom for the greater good (taxes, speed limits, etc...). Vague concepts, but the basic recognition of the starting point is important, even if it doesn't change your final opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Precisely where I disagree with you, and summarized very concisely. Excellent job, certainly much better than my try:


Well then the point has already been answered then...

Point #1 In your own words, there is no benefit.

Point #2 Free choice is curtailed in many aspects of canadian society in regards to public safety, thus there is no reason for NOT having a ban on handguns.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm agreeing more the Beej than Da_Jonesy. 

You can't prove that a ban will really do any good. Britian introduced a ban in 1997 and even with their island geography, had their gun related deaths increase close to two fold. I honestly don't think Canada is somehow going to be able to implement a gun ban any better than Britian.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> I'm agreeing more the Beej than Da_Jonesy.
> 
> You can't prove that a ban will really do any good. Britian introduced a ban in 1997 and even with their island geography, had their gun related deaths increase close to two fold. I honestly don't think Canada is somehow going to be able to implement a gun ban any better than Britian.


In this day and age being an island or not will have little to do with the ability to import/export banned or prohibited goods. England's situation is radically different than Canada given the demographics of the population and the import nature of their economy.

You can agree with Beej if you want, the burden of proof on how handguns are good for Canadians still remain.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Well then the point has already been answered then...
> 
> Point #1 In your own words, there is no benefit.
> 
> Point #2 Free choice is curtailed in many aspects of canadian society in regards to public safety, thus there is no reason for NOT having a ban on handguns.


Following such a point of clarity with that. Disappointing. 

Those were two perspectives I was describing to try to lay out the issue. Feel free to jump to conclusions though, it's good exercise.

My point, as expressed in opposition to yours, is that the burden of proof lies on the act of limiting freedoms; a burden that is met for many of our social controls. 

Also, ignoring the 'not being an island' and, possibly, the 'next to the U.S.' arguments is odd. There are many unchecked border crossings into Canada.

[Editted a couple times immediately after posting because I'm tired.]


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You can agree with Beej if you want, the burden of proof on how handguns are good for Canadians still remain.


Let's tease this point a bit. Is it reasonably to expect that the population attempt to justify why they need to *keep* rights? If we had a ban already, and were talking about doing away with it or keeping it, then you would be bang on. But that's not the case. In extremely limiting ways, hand guns are already legal. So the change in law would be to remove rights. And it seems to me that it *must always* be the job of those who wish to take rights away to provide the proof. That is, after all, the assumption that lies behind "innocent until proven guilty".

Don't misundertand, please: in my gut, I believe that a ban on handguns is the right thing to do. But a gut feeling is not good enough in this society. We who wish to have the ban need to be able to bring real, compelling arguments. Not that we will convince the Vandaves of the nation, but because we owe it to ourselves to maintain the standard that rights cannot be removed without considerable thought and justification.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

:clap: 

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Beej and Vandave...
> 
> Your arguments against a ban detract from the larger issue at hand.
> 
> ...


I don't think the question is about burden of proof.

The real question here is acceptable risks.

Accidents happen. What we really need to define is an acceptable level of risk to the public resulting from individual activities that are not essential (meaning not food, shelter or clothing related).

I actually studied this in engineering and it has already been defined. An acceptable level of risk is considered to be 1:100,000 for an engineered structure. Our highways are built on this basis. Engineers design rock slopes based on 1:100,000 people dying from a falling rock. You could design it to 1:million, if you wanted, but it would cost more. In my career, I look at the risks to humans from contaminated sites. The acceptable level of risk is also 1:100,000. Interestingly, individuals will take more risks when they are in control (e.g. skiing, sky diving) and I recall that level was typically considered to be 1:10,000. 

With handguns, there were 171 homicides per year in Canada. Let's assume, although its not the case, that they all were accidental and completely preventable. 171 / 35 million = 1 in 200,000.

Essentially that is an acceptable level of risk and it matches everything we have built this country around.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... There is a 16% difference. Which is substantial enough, and I will grant you that your argument is better than most. ..."

I'm assuming you're referring to death rates from firearms. And, I don't know which year the figures are based on, but population seems to be obviously rounded off, perhaps in favour of making that figure larger than it is.

But, I think they are quite similar, considering all the differences between the two nations. A 16% difference in one set of data isn't significant. It's much more complicated than that. Some examples:

Handgun ownership by household; (1991):

USA 1 in 3
[Switzerland 1 in 7]
Germany 1 in 15
Canada 1 in 20
UK 1 in 100
NZ: no data; Australia is 1 in 50
Japan: no data; basically none.

For the same year, we have these rates:
Handgun murders (1991) / population/ rate per 100K
USA-----------13,429----254,521,000----5.28
[Switzerland--------97-------6,828,023----1.42]
Canada-----------128------27,351,509----0.47
[Sweden------------36-------8,602,157----0.42]
United Kingdom-----33------57,797,514----0.06
Japan--------------60-----124,460,481----0.05

Wish I had a number for Germany, but whatever. Canada somehow gets a 0.47 (roughly 1 per 220,000 people) this time around. Which is half of the 16% we had with the rougher figures.

It also seems that handgun ownership has fallen in Canada in the last 15 years while the murder rate from handguns has increased. Right away, that should be a big red flag that we're chasing a ghost with further tightening of legal handgun ownership.

In any case, I don't think an endless parade of stats is all that illustrative. Proper studies are far more complicated than the numbers you or I can post, and they still have difficulty coming up with anything beyond broad trends.

My position is we have sufficient rules and regulations now, that Toronto has problems that go far beyond what the stroke of a pen can solve, and Mr Martin is doing exactly what we most certainly should not be doing.

That the solutions are difficult, perhaps expensive, and certainly vexing is no excuse to adopt a different strategy just because it's easy to do, and that, in a nutshell, is what's happening.

Personally, I'm sick of politicians who, when faced with a problem, promptly do an about face, point a finger at the straw man, and set about attacking him. Turn around, face the problem and set about fixing it, or get out of the way so someone who gives a **** can.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Let's tease this point a bit. Is it reasonably to expect that the population attempt to justify why they need to *keep* rights? If we had a ban already, and were talking about doing away with it or keeping it, then you would be bang on. But that's not the case. In extremely limiting ways, hand guns are already legal. So the change in law would be to remove rights. And it seems to me that it *must always* be the job of those who wish to take rights away to provide the proof. That is, after all, the assumption that lies behind "innocent until proven guilty".
> 
> Don't misundertand, please: in my gut, I believe that a ban on handguns is the right thing to do. But a gut feeling is not good enough in this society. We who wish to have the ban need to be able to bring real, compelling arguments. Not that we will convince the Vandaves of the nation, but because we owe it to ourselves to maintain the standard that rights cannot be removed without considerable thought and justification.


Let me put into term that westerners can understand. 50 years ago methamphetamine were not a banned substance and were widely used by truckers and students, etc...

Society made a decision that methamphetamine (and derivatives such as crystal meth) that ultimately these substances were detrimental to society. 

Society bans activities and items for public safety all the time and one can argue that we often have to give up freedoms to live in a society. Handguns have no purpose beyond inflicting damage upon other living beings (sure you could use it as a hammer, but hey we have hammers so you don't need a handgun to drive a nail). While some may argue that they are collectors or competitive shooters, these reasons alone do not outweigh the greater public good which would come from a handgun ban.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good post Gord. That summarizes my thoughts quite well.

I want to deal with the real issue and justice issues have always been big on my agenda. With the Liberals it seems these issues only get brought up at election time. The issue is so much deeper than handgun ownership. There are better ways to address the problem that could have a real impact. The obvious one is real penalties for illegal possession of a firearm (say a 5 year minimum sentence). I guarantee that we would have a measurable impact within a couple years.

It's just a cheap political ploy by Martin. This is obviously a wedge issue and he hopes it will draw support from the NDP.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Society bans activities and items for public safety all the time and one can argue that we often have to give up freedoms to live in a society. Handguns have no purpose beyond inflicting damage upon other living beings (sure you could use it as a hammer, but hey we have hammers so you don't need a handgun to drive a nail). While some may argue that they are collectors or competitive shooters, these reasons alone do not outweigh the greater public good which would come from a handgun ban.


If that's your opinion then fine. But you haven't considered the implications. If the level of care is no risk to anybody resulting from anything, then follow it through to its logical conclusion.

We would have to ban all sorts of things. Do you really need to go to the movies, go for a liesurely drive, purchase consumer items (more trucking on the roads)? More vehicles on the roads = more preventable deaths. Based on your standard of care, we would lose all sorts of things. 

If you don't agree with that, then please define the level of care that is acceptable to you.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

gordguide said:


> Sweden------------36-------8,602,157----0.42]
> United Kingdom-----33------57,797,514----0.06


Perfect example, thank you. Sweden about 1/6 the population of england yet more gun related deaths, why? Sweden has similar gun laws to the United States.

I believe (and don't quote me on this) that the line from the Swedish Constitution reads like...

_"People's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." _


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If you don't agree with that, then please define the level of care that is acceptable to you.


This is a fool's argument, so why are you not complaining about not being able to have a hand grenade or store dynamite in your basement or mix up some home brew napalm?

There is NOTHING in the Canadian constitution or Charter that says you have the right to own any weapon of any kind, unlike the US 2nd amendment which says it explicitly.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I want to deal with the real issue and justice issues have always been big on my agenda. With the Liberals it seems these issues only get brought up at election time. The issue is so much deeper than handgun ownership. There are better ways to address the problem that could have a real impact.


Or that the Harper gang is big on fear mongering... a la GWB neo-con agenda...
What justice issue? I have pointed out to the Canadian "patriot act" which did not get any response from you...




Vandave said:


> The obvious one is real penalties for illegal possession of a firearm (say a 5 year minimum sentence). I guarantee that we would have a measurable impact within a couple years.


"Real penalties" will do nothing - the death penalty does not deter murder, neither will harsher penalties. I can guarantee that is will have NO impact. 
But this again just shows the knee-jerk reaction that you have. Really, I wish that more though went into your arguments....




Vandave said:


> It's just a cheap political ploy by Martin. This is obviously a wedge issue and he hopes it will draw support from the NDP.


How would this "draw support from the NDP"? You make it sound as if all decision/way of thinking is divided along political lines...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> "Real penalties" will do nothing - the death penalty does not deter murder, neither will harsher penalties. I can guarantee that is will have NO impact.
> But this again just shows the knee-jerk reaction that you have. Really, I wish that more though went into your arguments.....


I am just repeating what Larry Campbell said to me. He is the former mayor of Vancouver, head coroner, a former police officer and now Senator. The TV show DaVinci's inquest is loosely based on him. He is also a socialist lefty.

Is his opinion a knee-jerk reaction as well, or do you think it is an informed opinion?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> This is a fool's argument, so why are you not complaining about not being able to have a hand grenade or store dynamite in your basement or mix up some home brew napalm?
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Canadian constitution or Charter that says you have the right to own any weapon of any kind, unlike the US 2nd amendment which says it explicitly.


That's a fool's response. Stick to my question.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That's a fool's response. Stick to my question.


For what little it is worth...



Vandave said:


> "if you don't agree with that, then please define the level of care that is acceptable to you."


There is a decided difference between the amount of thought that goes into engineering a road and owning a handgun and in that regard you analogy fails. 

The level of care is what society deems to be acceptable to the public good and what is in the interest of public safety.

There are NO explicit rights to possess any firearm in Canada. Banning handguns is not removing any right from you, as you never had that right in the first place.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The level of care is what society deems to be acceptable to the public good and what is in the interest of public safety.
> 
> There are NO explicit rights to possess any firearm in Canada. Banning handguns is not removing any right from you, as you never had that right in the first place.


OK, please define what is an acceptable level of care for the interest of public safety.

This is a key question and it has major implications....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> OK, please define what is an acceptable level of care for the interest of public safety.
> 
> This is a key question and it has major implications....


Absolutely it is... 

If it is acceptable to ban fully automatic weapons
If it is acceptable to ban certain types of knives and cutting weapons
If it is acceptable to ban explosives

It is *certainly acceptable* to ban handguns

The level of care in regards to public safety has clearly indicated that banning certain weapons and materials is in the public good. To this end there is already a precedent. To carry this precedent over to handguns is not unreasonable and ultimately a good thing for society.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Absolutely it is...
> 
> If it is acceptable to ban fully automatic weapons
> If it is acceptable to ban certain types of knives and cutting weapons
> ...


Then it follows that: 
It is *certainly acceptable* to ban smoking... everywhere. No smoking on the street. No smoking in your own house.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> Then it follows that:
> It is *certainly acceptable* to ban smoking... everywhere. No smoking on the street. No smoking in your own house.


Don't kid yourself... that is probably around the corner.

But to that end I don't recall the last pack of luckies that fired a 9mm projectile into someones cranium.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Don't kid yourself... that is probably around the corner.
> 
> But to that end I don't recall the last pack of luckies that fired a 9mm projectile into someones cranium.


No just years of painful lung cancer.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Don't kid yourself... that is probably around the corner.
> 
> But to that end I don't recall the last pack of luckies that fired a 9mm projectile into someones cranium.


Second hand smoke = 9mm projectile to the head

Dieing from second hand smoke (cancer) can be far more torturous.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Again, there is a semantic difference. One can argue, that if a childless adult couple only smoke in their own home, then they are harming no one but themselves, and should be allowed to do so. Should someone break into their home and steal their cigs, they then can't take that pack of cigs, hide in the shadows, and suddenly give someone lung cancer. It just doesn't work that way. A somewhat workable analogy, then, but it fails.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Of course there's nothing in the constitution of Canada about guns. All I want you to do is the same thing I try to do; think about Canada and Canadians, not just your backyard and the people you run into every day.

I understand Torontonians are alarmed. I can see how you feel no-one needs a gun. In Toronto, you don't need one. It's that simple.

But, just because you live in Toronto doesn't mean you gave up hunting, or traveling in remote areas, or prospecting for minerals.

This is a big country. These laws we're talking about affect everyone equally.

How many bears do you run across every year? This year, I has to protect 6 people from two black bears who charged us. Did I use a gun? No. I used my whits, and with a little help from an axe hitting some trees making some loud noises and shaking some branches, I was able to get everyone to safety and left the area.

I encounter bears, face to face, nothing between us, dozens of times a year. There is no-one within hours of me and the people I'm looking after. They are city folk, just like the average Toronto resident. I don't carry a gun when I'm out in the middle of nowhere; I travel unarmed and I'm away from home 12 hours a day, 7 days a week during the summer. I"ve lived in a tent and bears come around while I'm sleeping. Unarmed. But, I need to have access to a gun, because sometimes you have to deal with what happens when people and animals live in close contact.

So far, it's never been the animal's fault. It's always the people who cause problems, and it's always the animal who pays the price.

Now, every summer we have city folk who feed bears, or leave food for them. A bear will always, and I mean always, return to any spot that he found food. It might be once a week, it might be once every three weeks. But, even if he never finds another crumb, he's coming back to that spot every time he's on his rounds through the territory he lives in, until he dies.

If they feed the bear, the bear is coming back. As simple as it gets. And if the spot is a spot where naive people hang out, we will have to shoot him, sooner or later. "A fed bear is a dead bear." Believe it.

Banning firearms means banning them everywhere in Canada. Sure, there's no constitutional right to bear arms, but I don't live and work in downtown Toronto. Why don't you give me the same consideration I give you?

I want the violence solved, and I've given up a lot in order to help. I'm willing to give up even more, but I want a little assurance that you know what you're doing, and are willing to tackle the problems, not point fingers and demand "someone do something", or repeatedly insist on a solution we've sincerely tried, and that clearly doesn't work.

I pay lots of money to own tools I need to survive and do my job, which happen to be firearms amongst other things, and I don't complain about it. I took the firearms safety course (again; the old course, taught to me by police officers at the Saskatoon City Police station many years ago, is invalid, as are all previous courses). I pay for the course. I register my guns. I pay to register my guns. I obey the law. I am willing to pay the penalty if I'm in violation of the law.

What do you do for me? Call me names and insist I'm some kind of cowboy because I have a genuine need for something you don't?

There was a fellow from southern Ontario up in my neck of the woods a month or so ago. Some geology student, apparently. Got himself eaten by wolves, if you remember the story. I walk, unarmed, right where he was, and I've been in contact with wolves many times. At first I could not believe he had been killed by a wolf. It didn't make sense to me.

Then I talked to the people who were there and I found out what happened. I don't want to talk ill of the dead, but let me tell you, he was very, very stupid. He broke the law, actually. So, for all those people in Toronto who don't think I need a gun, let me tell you this:

When you take off at night, on foot, alone, and travel to an area where you spotted wolves the night before and were able to take pictures of them without incident from less than 10 feet away, leave it at that, OK? Don't crawl into a wolf den, and pull pups out of the den so you can take pictures of them, and if you do, don't be surprised if momma wolf doesn't kill you too. Because to be honest, she doesn't have a choice. That kid had the choice, and chose unwisely.

My very good friend, a conservation officer who loves wildlife, had to shoot that wolf and her two pups because of that kid, who died for nothing more than a photo opportunity.

Now, what was that about "nobody needs a gun in Canada" ?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm a Torontonian and I agree with most of what you say. We're not all shrieking freaks over here in the big smoke. Most of us are rattled by recent bloodshed, yes. I believe there are certainly better ways to address local violent crime rates. Significantly upping the penalties for gun-related crimes is one way. Putting more cops on the beat might well be another. But banning guns, when most of the ones used in criminal acts come from down south, along a very permeable and very lengthy border? I don't think so.

I don't see a handgun ban as anything but a superficial, and desperate, Liberal maneuver.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

gordguide said:


> Of course there's nothing in the constitution of Canada about guns. All I want you to do is the same thing I try to do; think about Canada and Canadians, not just your backyard and the people you run into every day.



We aren't talking about a total firearms ban are we. We are talking about a handgun ban.

I absolutely agree with the sentiment of your statement about the need for firearms in certain parts of Canada. I have 4 sisters who spread out between Northern Alberta all the way to to the NWT in Inuvik. In certain areas the need for a firearm is a requirement... but not handguns.

There is a big difference between a rifle and shotgun vs. a handgun.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> There is a big difference between a rifle and shotgun vs. a handgun.


Yes there is. Gangstas would look pretty stupid trying pop a cap in your ass with one of these.








And it would be a lot harder to sneak one into a club, or a shopping mall, or to work...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting story. The father of a TO shooting victim calls Martin a jackass over useless gun ban:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/12/11/1348075-sun.html


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... We aren't talking about a total firearms ban are we. We are talking about a handgun ban. ...'

And I am reminding you that banning anything means banning it everywhere, no matter what the circumstances. There are a very few people who can carry handguns in Canada and they can do so precisely because of necessity; long guns are not appropriate. Bush Pilots, trappers and geologists all may apply for such a permit, and considering the rarity of a carry permit in Canada (we don't issue carry permits to off duty police officers, for example), it would seem we feel that is justifiable.

I fail to see why we should allow autos to accelerate to 100 KmH faster than 10 seconds, why we should allow cars that travel at speeds above 110 KmH, and given a few moment's consideration, we could easily add to the list perhaps perpetually. There have been many, many attempts over the years to ban motorcycles, yet they still persist, and they are defended by people who have never sat on one in their lives. Who needs a powerful computer? If you can't show me a paid copy of Maya, why should we let people use fast computers for eMail and web-surfing when they can be used for dangerous purposes, for crime, for the spread of malware that clearly harms society?

The answer is of course that we live in a free society where a restriction must be reasonable and overwhelmingly justified, and where we do not ban the use of things (even if that use is narrow, or even if the use is frivolous or unproductive) by a reasonable person simply because there is a potential for harm.

If you want to convince me we should ban handguns outright, I insist that I see evidence of some resultant benefit to society from your ban, and that those benefits outweigh the disadvantages. If no disadvantages can be found, then I suggest that can only be true if no-one is looking.

I am afraid that a call to ban handguns outright is itself evidence that all previous restrictions have failed materially to do any of the things they claimed they would do. **

Show us how the previous restrictions have done any of the things they set out to do.

If they did not, I must insist on some rather compelling evidence before I would consider following the same approach.

** I often hear this as an argument to further restrict firearms, when it is in fact a compelling argument to look elsewhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> " ... Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it. ..."


Still some basic disagreements here (burden of proof, existence of proof, etc.).

I do, however, think that we can all agree to enact a complete ban of Holy Hand Grenades (all models, including the Antioch). Snuffing naughty people is too open to abuse.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The weapons of the Book Of Armaments are sacrosanct. We shall hear no more of blasphemy.

I shall now place the fingers, so made by divine forethought to fit, to the entrance of mine ears, and say the Holy Words: " lalalalalalalalalalalala ..."


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Still some basic disagreements here (burden of proof, existence of proof, etc.).
> 
> I do, however, think that we can all agree to enact a complete ban of Holy Hand Grenades (all models, including the Antioch). Snuffing naughty people is too open to abuse.


Ban all the grenades you want, but you can't ban crazy.

And that rabbit killed many a man with only its teeth. No handguns, holy hand grenades, knights who say ne or crazy wizards.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Those teeth don't scare me... Get out of my way! -dies.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Yes there is. Gangstas would look pretty stupid trying pop a cap in your ass with one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Necessity is the mother of invention...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Sawed off shotguns are illegal.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Sawed off shotguns are illegal.


I'm glad, because we all know that making certain guns illegal will definately remove them from the streets.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Ever wonder why gangbangers like baggy pants?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I'm glad, because we all know that making certain guns illegal will definately remove them from the streets.


Now that you mention it, none of the gun violence in Toronto this year involved a sawed off shotgun. So I guess we do know, "definitely".


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Now that you mention it, none of the gun violence in Toronto this year involved a sawed off shotgun. So I guess we do know, "definitely".


Lol. Just because it didn't happen in Toronto doesn't mean 'definately' either. Calling Toronto the centre of the universe is ment to be a joke.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Mugatu said:


> Lol. Just because it didn't happen in Toronto doesn't mean 'definately' either. Calling Toronto the centre of the universe is ment to be a joke.


No, not the "centre of the universe", but the largest city in the country, so that our experience - one would think - is more statistically significant than, say, Maple Creek or Parry Sound.

Why don't you compile statistics and tell us how many deaths were caused in Canada by sawed off shotguns last year. It may be illuminating.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Why don't you compile statistics and tell us how many deaths were caused in Canada by sawed off shotguns last year. It may be illuminating.


I have better things to do. My point is that taking away hand guns won't change a thing. People will just figure out a way around the law, like, oh, purchasing one in the USA. There is a need (by criminal elements mostly) for hand guns. Let's get rid of the need first.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

While we're at it, let's ban all knives. There's more knife violence than guns.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

LOL, dude say WHAT?

did he just say... gangba... oh my... he did say that...



Mugatu said:


> Ever wonder why gangbangers like baggy pants?


Did you mean gangsters ? :lmao:


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> LOL, dude say WHAT?
> 
> did he just say... gangba... oh my... he did say that...
> 
> ...


Not THOSE gang bangers DNPTS. Sheesh, less porn mate.  Although, I guess they are packing heat. :O

I'd don't see gangsters (the types that wear suits with Fedoras) wearing baggy pants.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

gmark2000 said:


> While we're at it, let's ban all knives. There's more knife violence than guns.


That's very clever. Actually, certain kinds of knives are illegal.

There is a not-so-complicated theoretical construct that leads to reasonable decisions every day, about a tremendous variety of issues that are similar to this. the concept is clearly foreign to some of you, hence these specious comparisons to knives, cars, etc.

*We weigh the danger posed by the item against its value to society. *Think about it. 

Why are we not allowed to buy hand grenades or plutonium? They pose a grave danger, on one hand, and or the other, there is no value or utility to individuals possessing these items.

How about prescription narcotic drugs for pain relief? These also pose a danger - they are addictive, they can kill if misused. The value of these medications outweighs the danger, however - they relieve suffering that people with various ailments would not otherwise be able to tolerate.

Knives? Dangerous, yes, but they are also tools that each of us puts to good use on a daily basis. 

Switchblades? Silencers? Both dangerous. No apparent legitimate reason for private possession. Both illegal.

Is there any evidence that banning of silencers, hand grenades or plutonium has saved even one life or prevented one crime? Now, which of you here - those who argue that banning handguns is not legitimate policy unless it can be proven to save lives - supports private possession of silencers, hand grenades or plutonium? 

Lets hear from the pro-silencer, hand grenade and plutonium ranks.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> T*We weigh the danger posed by the item against its value to society. *Think about it.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Lets hear from the pro-silencer, hand grenade and plutonium ranks.


I tried that one... evidently none of them have even a remotely good answer as to why their rights are impinged by by a handgun ban, but not impinged by bans on hand grenades, explosives, etc...

Here is a twist... why are stun guns prohibited weapons yet handguns are restricted?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Why are cars allowed to go faster than 110km/h? Doesn't speeding kill more people in a year?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

AS, I just don't think that anymore restrictions/banning are going to help society anymore. So what's the point?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not against further handgun control, but some other items are out there that need addressing:

Reason not to put a speed limiter on every vehicle, set at 110 km/h or, better yet, GPS-based speed limiters to local speed limits (may not be economic yet). Lives would be saved. Same argument for breathalyser limiters.

Reason not the put cameras EVERYWHERE, where the video would only be checked after a crime (no peeping). This could drastically reduce crime (near 100% arrest and incarceration rate in urban centres), and is increasingly economic, especially considering the level of crime that could be reduced. I don't agree with this notion, but you could that argue that unless you're committing a crime, this shouldn't be a problem.

On the recently raised points:

Plutonium's destructive capabilities are orders of magnitude higher than most other risks to society. Different beast entirely.

Grenades are somewhat higher, but could they be offered under strict controls at 'firing ranges'? At homes they can't be used (basic noise and fire bylaws). Somewhat different beast.

Silencers: Put under strict controls, with handguns. A very good example for this discussion, thanks.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Beej said:


> Reason not to put a speed limiter on every vehicle, set at 110 km/h or, better yet, GPS-based speed limiters to local speed limits (may not be economic yet). Lives would be saved. Same argument for breathalyser limiters.


Hehe, I was being rhetorical .


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yeah, but let's see some good discussion on this to separate sometimes visceral anti-handgun feelings and focus on pursuits to help society at reasonable cost (cost in a very broad sense).

Also, I'm actually asking all to contribute because whether you're for or against something, it can still be beneficial to understand the other side by thinking through it. So, type away Mugatu...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> We weigh the danger posed by the item against its value to society. Think about it.


Who gets to define value? Clearly the people who own handguns think there is some value to it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> Why are cars allowed to go faster than 110km/h? Doesn't speeding kill more people in a year?


They are doing a test trial of this in Ontario I believe.

I am definately against this type of intrusion on my privacy as well.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think those were Liberal Party lawn signs.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Who gets to define value? Clearly the people who own handguns think there is some value to it.


I'm waiting to hear what that value is.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I'm waiting to hear what that value is.


Recreation, entertainment, collecting, sentimental value and home protection.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Recreation, entertainment, collecting, sentimental value and home protection.


Of those I think only two are even remotely plausible.

Collecting, perhaps I could see that, however IMHO there is no need for the gun to be functioning. I think that in cases like this the gun would have to disabled in some way (ie. closed barrel or remove the firing pin).

Sentimental, same as above.


The other three reasons... they don't fly IMHO.

Recreation... If you have to shoot targets, then an Airsoft or Pellet gun works just as well.

Entertainment... again an Airsoft or Pellet gun works just as well.

Home protection... Any firearm stored in a house needs to be stored under lock and key with the ammunition stored under lock and key in another location. That pretty much makes them useless for home protection if you store your firearms in a legal responsible manner.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Recreation, entertainment, collecting, sentimental value and home protection.


I agree with recreation, entertainment, collecting and sentimental value but not home protection.

Why? Well, I dunno. I've never seen myself as needing one. Then again, I've lived in fairly nice neighbourshood most of my life. If I lived in a neighbourhood with more crime/violence I might think differently.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

> Collecting, perhaps I could see that, however IMHO there is no need for the gun to be functioning. I think that in cases like this the gun would have to disabled in some way (ie. closed barrel or remove the firing pin).
> 
> Sentimental, same as above.


What's the point in collecting something that doesn't work? What if they had a black powder pistol from the early 1800s? Wouldn't it be a shame to deactivate the firearm?

Older car engines pollute like mad. There are no laws ordering people to change the engine to something less polluting. Why? Because you loose the essence of the item.



> Recreation... If you have to shoot targets, then an Airsoft or Pellet gun works just as well.
> Entertainment... again an Airsoft or Pellet gun works just as well.


Comparing handguns to pellet/airsoft guns is like comparing apples to oranges. 



> Home protection... Any firearm stored in a house needs to be stored under lock and key with the ammunition stored under lock and key in another location. That pretty much makes them useless for home protection if you store your firearms in a legal responsible manner.


Agreed. I think Rick Mercer could make a good skit about this one.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Of those I think only two are even remotely plausible.
> 
> Collecting, perhaps I could see that, however IMHO there is no need for the gun to be functioning. I think that in cases like this the gun would have to disabled in some way (ie. closed barrel or remove the firing pin).
> 
> ...


That's your opinion (although somewhat uninformed because I doubt you have used firearms) and that's fine, but you are forcing it on other people. 

As far as disabling collector handguns...What's the difference between an original Picasso and a perfect immitation? 



da_jonesy said:


> Home protection... Any firearm stored in a house needs to be stored under lock and key with the ammunition stored under lock and key in another location. That pretty much makes them useless for home protection if you store your firearms in a legal responsible manner.


That's also your opinion. Some people might feel safer with a handgun in their house. Not all situations require immediate action. Sometimes you do have time to get yourself armed. You definately have significantly more time than it will take for the police to arrive.

The bottom line is... Who are you to define the utility of a handgun?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That's your opinion (although somewhat uninformed because I doubt you have used firearms) and that's fine, but you are forcing it on other people.


For your information I have fired everything from black powder pistols to an AKM (Chinese AK47 with military ammo, scary sh*t). I have the photos to prove it. A couple of years ago my buddy got married and the morning of wedding we went to the gun club (his Dad is a competitive black powder shooter).

You once again are spouting off from your insular little world. 

BTW... unrelated subject but your tirade about how New Orleans will be fine is turning out to be flat out wrong. I was just talking with a colleague whose house is gone (he lived near one of the levies that broke) and all of neighbors and friends in NO houses are gone as well. The people their lost EVERYTHING. But I digress.

You have no clue... so lets get back to the issue being discussed.



Vandave said:


> That's also your opinion. Some people might feel safer with a handgun in their house. Not all situations require immediate action. Sometimes you do have time to get yourself armed. You definately have significantly more time than it will take for the police to arrive.


What hollywood, home invasion scenarios are you imagining? You are deluded if you think that a handgun (or any firearm) will provide you any home protection. You'll get more protection from ADT than any firearm you can buy. Tell me smart guy... when was the last case of justifiable homicide in Canada? When was the last time you heard of anyone shooting an intruder? (Psychos in Alberta shooting RCMP officer don't count) It doesn't happen here.



Vandave said:


> The bottom line is... Who are you to define the utility of a handgun?


I am a concerned citizen of Canada who considers handguns as a public menace and a threat to my friends and family. Who are you to promote the continued adoption and use of hazardous weapons which threaten the safety of my loved one?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> BTW... unrelated subject but your tirade about how New Orleans will be fine is turning out to be flat out wrong. I was just talking with a colleague whose house is gone (he lived near one of the levies that broke) and all of neighbors and friends in NO houses are gone as well. The people their lost EVERYTHING. But I digress.
> 
> You have no clue... so lets get back to the issue being discussed.


I feel for your colleague. It sucks that it happened to their city. 

I have gone through the EPA data. I said they wouldn't find much contamination in either the surface water or soil. I was correct in almost every respect. 

But, I guess the EPA has no clue and falsified everything. 



da_jonesy said:


> What hollywood, home invasion scenarios are you imagining? You are deluded if you think that a handgun (or any firearm) will provide you any home protection.
> 
> I am a concerned citizen of Canada who considers handguns as a public menace and a threat to my friends and family. Who are you to promote the continued adoption and use of hazardous weapons which threaten the safety of my loved one?


As far as situations go, my wife's sister had a neighbour try to smash her door down threatening to kill her. The person never got in after trying for about 5 minutes. She could have been stabbed, attacked or whatever in the 10 minutes it took the police to arrive. If she had a firearm as backup, assuming she was trained to use it, it could have been useful. And yes, she would have had the time to unlock a safe and get ammo.

Do you not think I am a concerned citizen regarding firearms? It concerns me very much. That's why I believe in giving the police more resources and prosecuting people for illegal handgun possession, as opposed to prosecuting law abiding citizens.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Vandave said:


> As far as situations go, my wife's sister had a neighbour try to smash her door down threatening to kill her. The person never got in after trying for about 5 minutes. She could have been stabbed, attacked or whatever in the 10 minutes it took the police to arrive. If she had a firearm as backup, assuming she was trained to use it, it could have been useful. And yes, she would have had the time to unlock a safe and get ammo.


Then would you say investing into a more sturdy door (like the one your wife's sister's house has) would be better than owning a handgun?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Do you not think I am a concerned citizen regarding firearms? It concerns me very much. That's why I believe in giving the police more resources and prosecuting people for illegal handgun possession, as opposed to prosecuting law abiding citizens.


No I don't think you are concerned... I think you have a political agenda (which is your right). I believe that your agenda is contrary to the public good and Canadian society in general.

Please show me where any police officer has publicly supported more handguns in the home. If anything increased handgun ownership would be a menace to the police as they would never know when they go into break up a domestic if one side or both are packing.

Taken to the extreme in Afghanistan a US Colonel was quoted...

"Safety? every f**king person in this country has a weapon... how can we make it safe?"

So tell me Marshall Earp, why is it that in Canada a Taser is prohibited yet handguns are only restricted?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Then would you say investing into a more sturdy door (like the one your wife's sister's house has) would be better than owning a handgun?


Or a big dog... or ADT...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Then would you say investing into a more sturdy door (like the one your wife's sister's house has) would be better than owning a handgun?


Watch it. He's going to start talking about how people can be killed with "sturdy doors".

"What are you going to ban next? Sturdy doors? Elevator shafts? Chairs with wheels on them? Where does it end? (Plea of Righteous Despair™).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

“Toronto and Ottawa do not have a true understanding of the gun I'm holding, or its place in society.
"I grew up with a gun in my hand," says retired IMB technician Dwayne Simpson, who was born in 1948 on an Alberta spread where weapons were common and respected.”

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Election/2005/12/14/1352351-sun.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> “Toronto and Ottawa do not have a true understanding of the gun I'm holding, or its place in society.
> "I grew up with a gun in my hand," says retired IMB technician Dwayne Simpson, who was born in 1948 on an Alberta spread where weapons were common and respected.”
> 
> http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Election/2005/12/14/1352351-sun.html


Given the four dead mounties, right in your backyard... I'm deeply saddened that this attitude prevails in the west.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Or a big dog... or ADT...


Those are both very good options as well, but not everybody can get a dog.

And with ADT, you still have to wait for the police or security to arrive.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Taken to the extreme in Afghanistan a US Colonel was quoted...
> 
> "Safety? every f**king person in this country has a weapon... how can we make it safe?"
> 
> So tell me Marshall Earp, why is it that in Canada a Taser is prohibited yet handguns are only restricted?


That's a completely irrelevent example. 

Our soldiers don't fear handguns first off. You aren't going to hit a soldier with a handgun from long range. Nor is six to nine shots going to do much. They really fear automatic weapons like the AK47. In any case, they fear explosive devices the most. 

And then you have to consider the extreme social differences between our countries.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That's a completely irrelevent example.


It is completely relevant, and you've totally ignored the issue at hand with this analogy.

How does law enforcement feel about the proliferation of handguns and weapons in society in general. Please feel free to show me where a police association has endorsed an increase in consumer/residential handgun ownership.

I'm waiting for you to address the issues.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

And once again, another tragic event at the hands of a firearm...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/14/officer-laval051214.html

When will we come to terms that these things are contrary to public safety and the safety of the police trying to protect us.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Watch it. He's going to start talking about how people can be killed with "sturdy doors".
> 
> "What are you going to ban next? Sturdy doors? Elevator shafts? Chairs with wheels on them? Where does it end? (Plea of Righteous Despair™).


:lmao: :clap: :lmao: LOL


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

... if only we all lived in Toronto ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Mugatu said:


> ... if only we all lived in Toronto ...


You'd have to learn to cope with our sturdy doors. You wouldn't believe how sturdy some of them are.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You'd have to learn to cope with our sturdy doors. You wouldn't believe how sturdy some of them are.


Now that I think about it, we DO need to ban doors.

I hate getting my toes stubbed against the bottom end of the door! It also happened to my friend in the Downtown Guess store while she was visiting Toronto from Saint Catherine's! Her little toes almost bled a pool!


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You'd have to learn to cope with our sturdy doors. You wouldn't believe how sturdy some of them are.


Nah, in Toronto I'd just put a few bullet filled corpses up against the door.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I would feel safe at anytime in anyplace in Toronto knowing that if somebody shoots me with a handgun, that the handgun was illegal. The peace of mind is worth far more than any actual results or taking away someone else's choices because, after all, those factors are not relevant to my subjective peace of mind.

I already feel warm and fuzzy.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> I would feel safe at anytime in anyplace in Toronto knowing that if somebody shoots me with a handgun, that the handgun was illegal.


You would be lucky to live long enough to get shot, with all our cars, kitchen utensils and sturdy doors.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Here is a late 70's sketch from Saturday Night Live that I feel is germane to this discussion. Do Irwin Mainway's arguments sound like anything you have read here lately?


> <b>Consumer Reporter</b>: Good evening, and welcome to the holiday edition of "Consumer Probe". Our topic tonight is unsafe toys for children. For instance, this little bow and arrow set. [ holds up ] Pull the rubber suctions off, and the arrows become deadly missiles.<br>[ cut to full shot, showing Irwin Mainway seated to Joan's right ]<br>
> We have with us tonight, Mr. Irwin Mainway, President of Mainway Toys. Uh, Mr. Mainway, your company manufactures the following so-called <i>harmless</i> playthings: Pretty Peggy Ear-Piercing Set, Mr. Skin-Grafter, General Tron's Secret Police Confession Kit, and Doggie Dentist. And what about this innocent rubber doll, which you market under the name Johnny Switchblade? [ holds up doll ] Press his head, and two sharp knives spring from his arms. [ demonstrates ] Mr. Mainway, I'm afraid this is, by no means, a very safe toy.<br>
> <b>Irwin Mainway</b>: Okay, Miss, I wanna correct you, alright. The full name of this product, as it appears in stores all over the county, is Johnny Switchblade: Adventure Punk. I mean, nothing goes wrong.. little girls buy 'em, you know, they play games, they make up stories, nobody gets hurt. I mean, so Barbie takes a knife once in a while, or Ken gets cut. You know, there's no harm in that. I mean, as far as I can see, you know?<br>
> <b>Consumer Reporter</b>: Alright. Fine. Fine. Well, we'd like to show you <i>another</i> one of Mr. Mainway's products. It retails for $1.98, and it's called Bag O' Glass. [ holds up bag of glass ] Mr. Mainway, this is simply a bag of jagged, dangerous, glass bits.<br>
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

True, but for those the idea of actual results and other's choices outweigh my subjective peace of mind. This is not inconsistent, this is about generating more warm fuzzies.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Watch it. He's going to start talking about how people can be killed with "sturdy doors".
> 
> "What are you going to ban next? Sturdy doors? Elevator shafts? Chairs with wheels on them? Where does it end? (Plea of Righteous Despair™).


Ha ha, lol, lol....

If you don't understand the arguments I presented earlier, you are only expressing your own ignorance or unwillingness to address the questions I have posed. I'll give you a hand on the outstanding questions nobody seems to be able to answer:

1. Who gets to define the utility of something and why?
2. And more importantly, what level of risk to the public is acceptable for an individual to have utility?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> It is completely relevant, and you've totally ignored the issue at hand with this analogy.
> 
> How does law enforcement feel about the proliferation of handguns and weapons in society in general. Please feel free to show me where a police association has endorsed an increase in consumer/residential handgun ownership.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to address the issues.


We aren't talking about weapons in general. We are talking about handguns. This whole discussion is about the Liberal Party wanting to ban handguns. 

Of course a police association isn't going to endorse more gun ownership (I'm sure there are exceptions, but the majority don't). That doesn't mean they are against it either. Read the statements I posted earlier from the Vancouver Police Chief. He doesn't support this idea from the Liberal Party.

Back to your Afghanistan example. You surely realize this country has been at war for 20 years and that there are major social issues. Handguns simply aren't a big issue and are not the cause of their problems.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs.
> 
> I repeat: The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs


Out of all the posts in this thread (except my own of course), this one best articulates the cause of gun violence. :clap: 

I find it ironic how pot smoking left wing hippies don't see the connect between their habit and gun violence. 

Decriminalizing pot would do more for handgun violence than a stupid handgun ban. In the meantime, all you pot smoking hippies contribute to violence.tptptptp


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Decriminalizing pot would do more for handgun violence than a stupid handgun ban. In the meantime, all you pot smoking hippies contribute to violence.tptptptp


Just like decriminalizing alcohol in the 20's? Go read a history book or two.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Irwin Mainway said:


> If you don't understand the arguments I presented earlier, you are only expressing your own ignorance or unwillingness to address the questions I have posed. I'll give you a hand on the outstanding questions nobody seems to be able to answer:
> 
> 1. Who gets to define the utility of something and why?
> 2. And more importantly, what level of risk to the public is acceptable for an individual to have utility?


Actually, I stated a very simple calculus that is used to make decisions of this nature on a regular basis. If you understood it, you woould not pose question number 2. I will explain again:

You *weigh* the inherent risk against the value. That's why nobody with any sense talks about banning kitchen knives or cars.

As for question number 1, who decides now that it's illegal:
- to posess a sawed off shotgun, a silencer or a switchblade;
- to drive a car when you have more than .08% blood alcohol concentration;
- to drive without insurance;
- to sell alcohol to children;
- to print money;


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Originally Posted by GratuitousApplesauce
> The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs.
> 
> I repeat: The cause of the vast majority of urban crime, gang violence and shootings is because of one thing. Illegal drugs


Perhaps the best post of this thread. All handgun murders here (36 total murders this year) were drug related. GA is on to something important.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

And it's certainly acceptable to ban the Barb-B-Q, smoked meat and bacon, because smoke curing and nitrates are proven carcinogens.

Or is it? Mostly what I feel is missing from some of the arguments is perspective.

We ban hand grenades and M-80's but allow fireworks. What is the difference? It's a difference of degree; they're all explosives and in fact you can make dangerous explosives from firecrackers. We do not ban plutonium, we strictly regulate it. We do not ban methamphetamine, we regulate it.

We keep a perspective on things and make reasonable judgments on what should and should not be allowed, as well as what should be allowed but regulated, in a free society.

I personally see no reasonable expectation of reducing gun violence in Toronto with a tightening of the handgun restrictions that already exist. Earlier we had the case of 6-year old Kayla Rolland, and it was mentioned because a gun was used.

But what of the fact the gun that killed Kayla is already illegal in Canada? What of the fact that it was a crack house, with crack dealers, and the shooter's mother was a crack addict? What of the fact that gun violence in Toronto is gang related? What of the fact that each gun used in these deaths was already illegal?

We can go on, we can ban handguns completely. It's irrelevant to some, an annoyance to others; and a passion to still fewer (Canada wins gold and silver in competition shooting internationally).

But, I ask you: will you stand in front of all Canadians; at the funerals of perhaps criminal, perhaps innocent Toronto residents, and say:
" ... This cannot be happening. We banned handguns a long time ago. They obviously are the cause of this gun violence. Since we've solved that issue, there is nothing more we can do. ..."

Or is there something more we should be doing? And, when, do you suppose, should we start?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gordguide said:


> Or is there something more we should be doing? And, when, do you suppose, should we start?


Exactly. A total handgun ban is unenforceable against gang members. What to do is something that needs to be studied, but the goal of whatever process we choose has to be to get ILLEGAL handguns off our streets. The legal ones have been off the streets since the thirties.

I just wish I had the answer, but that doesn't mean we should quit trying to find a realistic policy, rather than a vote buying gimmick.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I believe that making marijuana legal would be an interesting step to curbing violence.

More tax dollars into coffers and if the logic is correct less expenses on police and the judicial system, not to mention the savings in human suffering.

Cheetos and late night pizza sales would increase dramatically.

Is there some sort of roadside chemical test that can be used to determine if someone is not in a shape to drive due to marijuana consumption?
Besides bloodshot eyes?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> I just wish I had the answer, but that doesn't mean we should quit trying to find a realistic policy, rather than a vote buying gimmick.


That gimmick seems to sell well on this forum.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Is there some sort of roadside chemical test that can be used to determine if someone is not in a shape to drive due to marijuana consumption?


Find one and I would support making the weed legal...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Is there some sort of roadside chemical test that can be used to determine if someone is not in a shape to drive due to marijuana consumption?
> Besides bloodshot eyes?


Hmmm, I never knew that. (The bloodshot eyes thing.) I wonder how he did? He must read a lot!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I believe that making marijuana legal would be an interesting step to curbing violence.
> 
> More tax dollars into coffers and if the logic is correct less expenses on police and the judicial system, not to mention the savings in human suffering.


I don't think the government would have the tax winfall many believe would be a result of legal marijuana. It would likely be expensive like cigarettes and booze so people will simply grow their own or turn to the drug dealing networks that exist today to get it way cheaper. The crap would still be untaxed and the dealers wouldn't have to worry about getting caught nor would their clients. They'd have an increase in clients since the social stigma of drugs would vanish with its legality. 
The drug dealers would simply become to marijuana what the Indian reserves are to cigarettes and alcohol. Discount outlets.

The other item being ignored is that crystal meth, cocaine, crack etc. would still guarantee a health population of illegal drug dealers/gangstas and the human misery they create.

Legalizing drugs is like swallowing a spider to catch a fly.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> It would likely be expensive like cigarettes and booze so people will simply grow their own or turn to the drug dealing networks that exist today to get it way cheaper.


Yeah just like how people distill whiskey and brew beer at home. And of course all those individuals who harvest tobacco in the backyard.

Get a grip.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, I never knew that. (The bloodshot eyes thing.) I wonder how he did? He must read a lot!


I watch a lot of *COPS* tv show.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I watch a lot of *COPS* tv show.


Ah yes, TV. Didn't think of that!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah just like how people distill whiskey and brew beer at home. And of course all those individuals who harvest tobacco in the backyard.
> 
> Get a grip.


I brew beer at home. But your point is still valid. Legalization is the only rational approach to non-addictive, therapeutic/recreational drugs like marijuana.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Legalization is the only rational approach to non-addictive....


Non-addictive? A few would disagree....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Guns take away the freedom of others. What other purpose do they serve?
> 
> Ban them, I say!


Good plan. Would that work the same way as the ban on prostitution or the ban on marijuana useage? Would the proposed Liberal gun ban be just as effective in stamping out handguns as their other bans and proclamations??

Hmmmm....

Here's a wild thought;

Actually ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books for social behavior that we as a society find distasteful (or dangerous)...and put repeat offenders in jail for a lengthy stay. Remove them from our law abiding society for a long stretch.

Give us all a break from the Liberal revolving door of justice, so to speak. As a policy, it's a total failure. We all know this.

Bottom line here?

Ban handguns. Ban them three more times, if you'd like. But if you don't enforce that ban with real mandatory minimum sentences, then it will be just one more excersize in futility. Nothing will change. The carnage will go on.

Criminals don't obey laws, and they laugh at bans. You need to get them off the streets and out of free society in order to really make a difference.

Think about it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the government was smart, they would stay away from banning handguns which have been banned in Canada since 1932.

What they need to do is introduce new legislation that required a mandatory 10 year jail sentence for anyone caught with an illegal handgun in their possession. That might just make street punks packing pistols think twice.

Then again, maybe not, but who knows?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> If the government was smart, they would stay away from banning handguns which have been banned in Canada since 1932.
> 
> What they need to do is introduce new legislation that required a mandatory 10 year jail sentence for anyone caught with an illegal handgun in their possession. That might just make street punks packing pistols think twice.
> 
> Then again, maybe not, but who knows?


Either way, who cares? Sure it is preferable for it to be a deterrent. If that doesn't work, at least you have these punks off the streets so they can't commit crimes.


----------

