Liberals want Handgun Ban

[midgetcop]

So how is a handgun ban going to affect gang-related behaviour when all the guns are coming across the border? Solve the roote problem, instead of whinning votes and leaving the problem to get larger.

So, like, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm not FOR the handgun ban??

 

[Infanteer]

You contradict yourself in your statements: first be saying that guns make it easier to kill and admitted that it adds to gang-related murder. And then you go off on some tangent that totally implies the opposite. Huh?

You are mixing two concepts of lethality of crimes and crimes committed together.

If you want to reduce the lethality of gang violence, then stopping gang-members from using them will probably help, although not at any effective level.  Considering that these make up a small percentage of the homicides committed every year and a small percentage of the criminal activity conducted by gangs each year, I'm not interested or worried about reducing the magnitude of lethality on todays streets.  Quite frankly, I don't see this as an issue requiring loads of public money and certainly not one requiring the average, law-abiding Canadian to surrender a freedom for the false notion of security.  If you take a gun from a gang-banger, he's going to get a knife and we would most likely see a rise in stabbing deaths down in Jane and Finch.

But gun violence isn't confined to gangs and gang violence isn't confined to guns.   That is why focusing on "guns and gangs" is a bad approach.

The goal (and real political focus) should be to reduce gangland violence - period - of which gun-deaths is but a small portion; gang violence usually breaks out due to dispute over "turf" or illicit business conflicts.  The crime will still be committed sans firearms, but there is less of a chance of it being lethal (but not much; as said before, a person can be plenty lethal if he chooses so).  I don't care if it is a drive-by shooting, a swarm beating, or rocks through the window - they are all symptoms of the problem.  Focusing on guns (the symptom) ignores the fact that if "demand" to use violence exists, there is a much larger "supply" then handguns alone.  Your argument that the presence of guns act as a trigger for violence does not address this the root issue - it paints guns themselves as having an implicit effect on the causality of gang violence.  If someone really wants to kill another person, they don't need a gun to convince them that it is possible.

I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population.

You really want to take a look at violence-murder in Toronto? Take a look at how much of has been committed by handgun. And then compare it to recent years.

"heckuva lot easier"?  What is their "business"?  I don't think gangs and other forms of organized crime exist to wipe each other out in an orgy of violence.

As for a danger to the general population, how many innocent people a year are hit in shootout cross-fires?  I think you are inflating the threat; and when doing so brings about faulty ideas on potential solutions, there is a problem.

As for the stats, I already did look them up:

Well, lets see what Statscan says.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal01.htm?sdi=homicides

-  Last year, 172 of the 622 homicides in Canada were shootings; a bit over 25%.  This means that the other 450 homicides (75%) were not gun related.  Stabbing was the biggest cause of death and beating was pretty close to shooting.

-  According to the Liberal release, roughly 114 of these firearms homicides should have been committed by a handgun (2/3).

-  According to the Liberal release, of these 114 handgun murders, 81 were gang/drug related (71%) [unless I'm reading the stat wrong and 81 of the 450 total homicides were drug/gang related] - it remains interesting to see what the other handgun murders were for.

So it seems to me that the logical conclusions are that:

- There is no gun epidemic; people still kill people, and more often than not, without guns.

- For people who do decide to use a gun to kill, handguns are the weapon of choice.  However, a huge percentage of these handgun deaths are amongst criminal members who are unable to legally purchase or possess handguns.  They own them illegally - so how would banning something that is already illegal really affect handgun crime?

- The problem is not a proliferation of guns, but rather a proliferation of youth-gangs and a high-profit drug trade.  Maybe we should put the money there instead of making criminals out of Joe Blow who likes to take his pistol to the range?

Now, you've made it quite clear that you don't support a gun-ban, which is fine.  But the argument that you've been hawking here is built upon the same faulty premise as the handgun ban is - that firearms are correlated to an increase in violence.

 

[TCBF]

"So how is a handgun ban going to affect gang-related behaviour when all the guns are coming across the border? Solve the roote problem, instead of whinning votes and leaving the problem to get larger." - Slim

- As long as we understand the problem is we continue to recycle psychopathic gang-bangers instead of incarcerating for 50 years or executing them.

As for 'longer sentences don't have an effect', well that depends on the effect you want them to have.  If a puke is identified as such when he is 13, I want him to have as few years of freedom as possible, thus reducing society's exposure to the risk.

The problem is an animate one - the puke - not an inanimate one - the gun.

We also have a political dilemma, where society is convinced that a raped woman, lying on the ground strangled by her own pantyhose, is morally superior to a woman with a smoking handgun standing over the dead body of her attempted rapist.

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

Longer sentences do work.  Every year inside is a year of safety for all the potential victims outside.

I can hit a fig 11 at 25m too.  Is that supposed to be in any meaningful sense comparable to overcoming the physical problem of hitting a moving object and the emotional problem of shooting a person?

The odds of being a murder victim are small; so what?  For that reason we should further infringe basic rights to mitigate an even smaller probability of being the victim of a lawful and prudent firearm owner?  Nice logic; take care your hindbrain doesn't suffer the same short-circuit or you will stop breathing.

 

[Slim]

I can hit a fig 11 at 25m too.   Is that supposed to be in any meaningful sense comparable to overcoming the physical problem of hitting a moving object and the emotional problem of shooting a person?

Nicely put.

The gang-bangers don't seem to have the same problem as the rest of us with regard to the emotional state of killing other people.

thanks god they don't have the training to go with it!

 

[48Highlander]

Is it?

Although a figure 11 target is roughly the same size as the upper three quarters of an average human being the critical areas that need to be hit to put someone down are not.

I have trained senior NCO's (including one from your unit) who have had quite a hard time with accurately shooting an automatic pistol and hitting anything of value with it. And, to be honest, I'm having some trouble believing your data about the ranges at which your students were able to score consecutive hits with a 9mm. Because most people can't...Soldiers or not. If you don't believe me that go ask the person who's name I'm going to PM you what he thought of our course and how well he did.

Also bear in mind that we don't teach people to shoot targets...As the military does. We teach them to survive gunfights. And yes I'me very familier with Dave Grossman's work....You're leaving quite a bit out with that sweeping general statment.

I see.  So our disagreement seems to be mainly in deffinitions.

I don't know how effective your average person would be at hitting "critical areas", I was just disputing your claim that the person with a pistol can't hit another body from 12 meters.  Sure, if you define a hit to be a given area on the target, then it gets much harder.  We got some of the troops to the point where they could hit clay pigeons (stationary) from 10 meters, but most couldn't, so yeah if you're talking about hitting the head/chest area, you're probably right about most people not being able to do it from 12 meters.

A well made argument completely pissed away by the last line.

Seriously, Duck Hunt? C'mon.

You'd be surprised.  While videogames obviously aren't realistic simulators, firing a plastic pistol in a game works on the same principle as firing a paintball gun, or a lazer-tag gun, or a real pistol.  They all have different characteristics, but learning how to use any one of them properly will make you better at using the others.  Sort of how someone who's driven a go cart will have an easier time at driving a real car than someone who's never been inside any sort of motorized vehicle before.  Obvously pacticing with the real thing works better, but every little bit helps.

 

[Slim]

You'd be surprised.  While videogames obviously aren't realistic simulators, firing a plastic pistol in a game works on the same principle as firing a paintball gun, or a lazer-tag gun, or a real pistol.  They all have different characteristics, but learning how to use any one of them properly will make you better at using the others.  Sort of how someone who's driven a go cart will have an easier time at driving a real car than someone who's never been inside any sort of motorized vehicle before.  Obvously pacticing with the real thing works better, but every little bit helps.

As much as I am loath to agree I am going to in this case.

If you have seen/read/heard about Col Dave Grossman and what he's doing right now you would quickly realize that all these bandbang-shootemup video games are infact firearms training simulators. I won't go into specifics but if you have the time go read some of Grossman's stuff and you'll very quickly realize what I'm talking about.

 

[dutchie]

As much as I am loath to agree I am going to in this case.

If you have seen/read/heard about Col Dave Grossman and what he's doing right now you would quickly realize that all these bandbang-shootemup video games are infact firearms training simulators. I won't go into specifics but if you have the time go read some of Grossman's stuff and you'll very quickly realize what I'm talking about.

Medal of Honour, ok, but Duck Hunt? Point taken none-the-less.

 

[Monsoon]

It's the basic premise of Gun Control that I find offensive:  That a 105 pound woman should have to fist-fight her 265 pound rapist.  When Wendy Kukier - et al - say Gun Control is a women's health issue, they are right - it is.

Mace.
Tasers.

 

[Dissident]

Moot point.

Tasers and other less lethal weapons are also prohibited.

Sure, you can get pepper spray. And I don't think anyone in this country would find guilty a women who used bear/pepperspray at an intended rapist. But the philosophie is that everyone should rely on the proper authority to defend them. No ones can be relied on to use proper judgement when defending themselves. Only Police or the government knows whats best for you...

 

[clasper]

Mace.
Tasers.

Time to add stun guns to the banned list:

Police worried over increasing criminal use of stun guns
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/12/stunguns051212.html

And snowballs:

Assault charges laid after snowball fight turns ugly
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/12/snowball-fight-051212.html

 

[Old Ranger]

The only thing that should make a snowball fight ugly is when:

1) Yellow snow is used,

2) Doggy Doo is added.

Yes, I get ticked when little brats throw snowballs at my car, that's why I'm working on an old tennis ball launcher to mount on my car modified for "Clean" snowballs.

Fight fire with fire and Fun with Fun!!!

Ben

 

[Jarnhamar]

Some teenagers threw iceballs at my truck a few years ago and broke my mirror. I guarentee two of those kids won't throw snowballs at cars anymore  :  Those things can do some damage, just like throwing a rock.

**I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.  You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse crap.**

I have trained senior NCO's (including one from your unit) who have had quite a hard time with accurately shooting an automatic pistol and hitting anything of value with it. And, to be honest, I'm having some trouble believing your data about the ranges at which your students were able to score consecutive hits with a 9mm. Because most people can't...Soldiers or not.

I'm going to back Slim up on this one. Having recently been on a support weapons course (which teaches the 9 mm shooting & coaching) and shot the 9mm PWT on another week-end - most people are surprised at how bad they shoot. Lots of people needed to reshoot or fire the same serial a few times to pass.  For some reason people think shooting handguns is a piece of cake.

It's the basic premise of Gun Control that I find offensive:  That a 105 pound woman should have to fist-fight her 265 pound rapist.  When Wendy Kukier - et al - say Gun Control is a women's health issue, they are right - it is.

Well said.

 

[1feral1]

I'm going to back Slim up on this one. Having recently been on a support weapons course (which teaches the 9 mm shooting & coaching) and shot the 9mm PWT on another week-end - most people are surprised at how bad they shoot. Lots of people needed to reshoot or fire the same serial a few times to pass.   For some reason people think shooting handguns is a piece of cake.
Well said.

With nearly 30 yrs of auto loading pistol shooting (yes the good ole Browning) , instructing for the CF, shooting CFSAC, and even instructing   .38s for an armoured car firm from 85-90, plus service in two armies, I too, would have to agree here.

Cold beers (you need one here, 0830 and 32C out already),

Wes

EDIT - I will say however, some pers pick it up quite well, and are bloody good, but thats the minority.

 

[Fry]

I know it's kinda hard to stick to topic, seeing this went to 18 pages, but I'll get back to the handgun ban.

I currently do not have a restricted firearms license, although my name is on the list, I'll be doing the course in the new year.

As childish as this may sound, Paul Martin is IMO, a ****-****. Seriously, did you guys check out how much this ban will cost? I may be mistaken, but I thought on TV it said at least 650 million! This is insane. Why?


This only affects law-biding citizens. Why? Because who commits crimes with registered firearms? I personally think the whole gun registry program is crap, but I won't get into that.

The crap you have to go through to obtain a handgun, and use it, transport it.... the government basically knows your every move. Many handguns are being smuggled across the border from the USA, that's why there's crimes committed with ILLEGAL handguns.

Martin says there's no money for us Newfoundlanders, no chance to bring our weather station back to Gander, Goosebay must be closed down, etc. Yet there's 650 million+ going to be wasted on this nonsense? I think this somehow should be a provincial decision. Ok, if many people in Ontario like shooting others and committing crimes with handguns, fine. Ban it there.

Us Newfoundlanders, and other provinces who don't have high numbers of handgun related crimes shouldn't have to suffer, because Paul Martin is trying to buy votes and waste more tax dollars. He should take the multi billion dollar gun registry program as well as the 650million he has for this stupid idea, and put it into the CF. At least it's not going to be wasted.

With this move, myself and many more have ruled out voting Martin and his band of crooks.

I'm happy with Danny, so it's Harper. (for too many reasons I don't want to list.)

end rant









Edited for improper language

And for the record I agree with the post
Slim

 

[redleafjumper]

What is astounding is not that Paul Martin's Liberals want to steal the property of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians, but that there are actually some people who don't have a problem with that act.  I hope Fry and others in the Maritimes and Ontario are much more successful in electing conservatives and de-electing liberals than has been the case in the past.

 

[Acorn]

The absurd argument I've seen is that my firearms may be stolen, and used in a crime. Therefore I should be forbidden from owning them. I hate to dredge up the car argument again, since it's a bit cliche, but consider this:

A firearms owner who fails to take the legally mandated precautions/procedures in securing the firearm (locked in a safe, trigger lock, etc) can be held responsible if the firearm is stolen and used in a crime. In fact, the gun owner can be liable for up to 10 years imprisonment.

A car owner who leaves the car unclocked with the keys in it (or, as is common in some places in winter - running) won't be held responsible for the high-speed chase which kills several pedestrians and/or other drivers, which results from his car being stolen.

Put the onus on those responsible, not the implement they use.

 

[R0B]

The fact is that if someone wants to kill another person, there is very little we can do about it. That person, well motivated, will use whatever he has to to kill him. That's not my point. My point is this: Get that guy when he commits an armed robbery, before he progresses to murder, and put him away. Make it so unattractive to commit crime whiole armed with guns that criminals will use other means. I'll bet the murder rate goes down, not because we've scared them straight, but rather that we threw them in prison for armed robbery for 25 years. It'll also even the playing field in armed robbberies. Hard-working entreprenuers who are robbed in their corner-store at knife point might start fighting back with clubs, spray, etc where they wouldn't have with a gun.

Guns belong to hunters, cops, soldiers, target-shooters, and otherwise law-abiding Canadians. This rabble has given them a bad rap.

I think we just need to get serious with the sentences the justice system hands out. Ten years should mean ten years, and good behavior shouldn't lessen a term, but rather, bad behavior should lengthen it. And I'm completely against adding time if a gun is used in a crime, because if the person is willing to commit the crime, they're already risking time, so all it really does is demonize firearms, particularly handguns, which some idiots now seem to think are only useful to nefarious individuals. I would however, support adding time for any crime committed with any weapon, just nothing that singles out firearms.

Your out to lunch on this, but I'll play along. So your saying every gun a Gang Banger has is lawfully registered to that person? I thought not. The minute it leaves the registered owner, with out his permission, it becomes illegal. I think you may have meant smuggled, and there are thousands of those in Canada. Ask the cops or Customs, they'll verify it. We get them here at the border by the bucket fulls, and that's just what our overworked Customs guys catch.

No. By "illegal" guns, I'm referring to any gun in the possession of someone without the proper permit for it. I'm saying that illegal guns aren't a major problem, because there are so few of them.

For the LAST TIME, I'm not trying to say that guns are THE ONE AND ONLY ENEMY, but they ARE worth trying to stop, in terms of illegal handguns.

A lot of things would be worth trying to stop if the government had infinite sums of money to waste on every little nuisance. How many murders are committed by illegal handguns every year? I don't know, but if only 548 homicides were committed in 2003, and only about a quarter of those were committed by all kinds of guns, I'd say it's a very, very minor issue. On the other hand, the theft and wanton destruction of millions of dollars worth of firearms every year by the federal government is an issue that could easily be remedied, and wouldn't cost a cent. In fact, it would save money.

Can you honestly say that removing all illegal handguns from the streets would reduce the murder rate? I don't know if it would. For one, illegal handguns are really only available to successful criminals. They sell for $2000 + on "the streets," so it's not as if any crackhead can just go out and buy one. Have you considered that the murder rate would possibly rise if certain drug dealers and gangsters were deprived of their firearms, by leveling the playing field and opening them to attack by gunless individuals?

You really want to take a look at violence-murder in Toronto? Take a look at how much of has been committed by handgun. And then compare it to recent years.

Bill Blair (Toronto's Chief of Police) gave a lecture at my school a few weeks ago. I left early, but not before he said that the media had been over-reporting handgun crimes, and mentioned that a few years ago, a similar streak occurred.

Anyways, do you actually have statistics to show that gun crime in Toronto has increased dramatically? I was told that the increase was minor. Isn't it interesting though, that violent crimes, particularly with firearms, have been going down in the US but not in Canada? I guess it's because that firearms registry has been working so damned well.

 

[Highland Lad]

One reason gun crime in the GTA has gone up so dramatically in recent years is the rise of the "Rent-a-Gun" criminal.

Essentially, you have criminal entrepreneurs who have possession of a weapon who charge for its use. Think about it: only one person has to try to hide a weapon (when not in use), and hundreds can benefit from its availability! It's the free-market system at its finest, no?

And just like the free-market system, once the Liberals go ahead with PMPM's ridiculous promise (although not even that's a guarantee - remember how the Liberals won their landslide victory based in part on their promise to scrap the GST?), the young entrepeneur will be free to jack up his prices even more.... what party do you think this astute young businessman will vote for? (I'd love to see that in a campaign ad  ;D)

 

[Fry]

I apologize for that language slim, glad to see people agree with me though.


Is Paul Martin really insane? Lies, lies and more lies. Waste money, tell more lies, try to act educated on topics that he himself probably haven't even heard of until his cabinet decided to try to gain votes.... the cycle continues.


Sorry for this next bit to stray off topic slightly, but I think it's related to the cirmes that the Liberals are committing. Just look at this Kyoto bit. Harper nailed Martin when he said the Liberals failed on the Kyoto thing. Martin is promising that the Liberals are going to push it forward, but they haven't even begun to do this. Why?

According to Harper, Martin's campaign jet uses many times more fuel than Harper's campaign jet. Just a start, but when asked about that on TV, Martin was dumbfounded and just babbled something about they plan on getting Kyoto off the ground.

Politicians are Politicians... but There is no way in hell that Martin can be voted back in, unless we all lose our marbles. Cut and slash, cut and slash.

Personally, I think we really should beef up our policing services and our armed forces, put more money into education thus lowering tuition. Stiffer sentences for ALL crimes.

Just to start. Hmm, prehaps I should run for PM.