Liberals want Handgun Ban

[Jarnhamar]

Disagree.
I'm for PEOPLE control.  People are harder to hide and easier to find.  Just compose a list of people who CAN'T own guns - register them - and let everyone else own whatever they like until they step on their dicks and get a record, then put THEM on the list.

Touche.  My pro-gun control attutude stems from our governments inability to control criminals and punish them.
I thought I heard once that you can do more time in prison for not registering a firearm than you would for committing a crime WITH a firearm.  Maybe it was incorrect though.

"I wasn't going to vote in this election. Now, I am. "

Over supper our of no where my wife, who was voting libreal much to my verbal abuse not to, started talking about how stupid that handgun ban would be and said she's voteing conservitive now.

Maybe the PM is sinking the boat on purpose.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Interesting debate, there are a lot of well thought out comments... and a few that weren't.

I've read conflicting reports on whether the Liberals will compensate gun owners who have their handguns confiscated, but either way it's going to be a mess. On the one hand, gun owners are out of pocket for the value of their handguns. For most, I expect that's less than $1,000 so not a serious issue but it will sting. However I know a few people who have quite an extensive collection. For them, it's not only an investment, but an inheritance for their children. Losing that with the stroke of a Liberal pen is significant, akin to having a chunk of the average Joe's RRSP's or pension clawed back.

On the other hand, if the Liberals choose to compensate handgun owners, it'll be a huge expense. Not only will they have to pay fair market value for the handguns (or why bother at all) but each will have to have it's value independently assessed, compounding the cost. At the end of the day, the Liberals will have paid an exorbitant amount of our tax money to turn useful recreational items into scrap metal, while the criminals will be unaffected.

Worse, I believe this may actually increase handgun related mischief. As a registered handgun owner I know I have to be very cautions about safe storage, transport only to and from the range, etc. As pointed out, our society leaves people with the impression that handguns are "cool" and to be coveted, so a certain portion of the population will continue to seek out handguns, regardless of how they obtain one. Banning handguns will simply drive people underground to get them (as is already happening) meaning an increase in unregistered guns. What's the difference between a gun which has had it's serial number and ballistic characteristics registered vs. one which has not? Absolutely nothing, except the owner may feel a little less concerned about the manner in which it is stored and/or used in the latter case. An unregistered gun at a crime scene adds little evidence. A registered handgun, or even the bullets fired from one at a crime seen is (pun intended) a smoking gun leading straight back to the registered owner.

A ban will encourage misuse of handguns, instead of controlling it.

I wonder how many handguns will go missing? I certainly don't advocate it (why bother... there will be no place left to use it) but I suspect some will try, even if it's to keep it as a paperweight or inheritance for the next generation.

Edit: I wonder what the economic impact of a ban would be? Clearly gunsmiths, sporting goods stores and ranges will take a hit but I imagine the repercussions extend beyond the obvious. Having said that, handgun ownership is not exactly prolific, so the impact is likely to be overshadowed by the cost of implementing the ban.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Loss of enjoyment of property through criminalizing possession is hardly compensated for by fair market value.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Will they also compensate me for the gun case, locks, cleaning tools and ammo that will be obviated by the ban? Not likely.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They didn't compensate anyone when they outlawed so many other firearms the last time around, they won't do it now either. Gun owners, to the lieberals, are something to be scorned, demeaned, derided and vilified. Not treated as regular citizens. If your really lucky, they won't charge you the administartion fee for the disposal and deregistration.

 

[Old Ranger]

How about the original Gun Registry being hacked at least 3 times?

Heard on 680 am today that T.O. Police said 25% of all illegal guns have been stolen from law abiding citizens.
(Please correct me if you heard diffrently)

Wonder how the criminals know what you have and where?

Voting PC,

Ben

 

[redleafjumper]

Here's the details on it:

Canada Hand Gun Ban
December 08, 2005
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1143

At a cost of $30 million a year over five years, the Canada Handgun Ban would include a federal Gunstoppers Program, amnesty efforts, a buy-back program. $15 million a year for re-licensing fee-waiver would also be provided.

In 2004, the homicide rate jumped 12 per cent. Since 2001 handguns have accounted for roughly two-thirds of firearms-related homicides â “ up from approximately one-half in the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990.

Research also clearly indicates that guns, violence and gangs are correlated. Statistics Canada's 2004 Homicide report counted 81 victims killed last year as a direct result of their involvement in illegal activities such as drug trafficking and gang violence.

Under this proposal, federal legislation would be enacted enabling provinces and territories to legally prohibit all handguns.

A federal fund of $30 million a year over 5 years would be created to support the legislation. This fund would provide for local amnesty programs and would enable collectors and current handgun owners to be compensated, at fair market value, for their collections. Legal owners and collectors of handguns would also be given the opportunity to permanently disable their guns in order to keep them, turn them into police, destroy, sell or export their guns to licensed owners in jurisdictions that are not enforcing the ban.

This fund would also create a national Gunstoppers Program, which would pay a reward for information leading to successfully getting an illegal handgun off the streets.

In addition, the fee for the re-licensing of long gun owners would be eliminated. Those who have recently renewed their licences would be reimbursed. Firearm holders would still be required to have a license and register their guns.

Legitimate target shooters who meet strict requirements would be eligible for a narrow exemption to the ban, which would be established in partnership with the provinces and territories. Special measures would be enacted to ensure that shooting competitions can take place in Canada and that Canadian participants in major multi-disciplinary sporting competitions â “ such as the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games â “ can legally own their handgun.

These initiatives would build on the previous announcements by the Minister of Justice of legislative amendments to the firearms provisions of the Criminal Code, which doubled mandatory minimum penalties for firearms smuggling, trafficking and the illegal possession of loaded handguns in public places. The legislative amendments also created two new offences: break and enter to steal a firearm, and robbery where a firearm has been stolen. As well, they provided reforms that would expand the use of prohibition orders, restrict parole and facilitate witness testimony. This legislation is an important element of the Liberal's gun and urban violence strategy.

Furthermore, the new legislation would build on previous justice initiatives, such as Minister Cotler's proposed agreement with the Province of Ontario to create dedicated, integrated teams of federal and provincial officials to collaborate and coordinate efforts to prosecute gun crimes.

A Liberal government's inclusive and balanced strategy would also include:

a $50 million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund as a fourth pillar of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, as announced by the Prime Minister on November 9, 2005;
support for community-based youth justice programs and partnerships to promote fair and effective approaches in response to youth in conflict with the law; and
community investments through the Youth Employment Strategy and the Justice Department's on-going programming and partnerships to provide hope and opportunities for youth and communities at risk across the country.
On October 27, Justice Minister Cotler also introduced reforms to conditional sentencing. Those reforms would prevent courts from using conditional sentences in cases of: serious personal injury offences as defined in the Criminal Code, such as all forms of sexual assault; terrorist activities; organized crime-related offences; and any other offence where the individual case is so serious that the need to condemn the act â “ and not use a conditional sentence â “ takes precedence over any other sentencing objective.

Courts would be required to explain in writing any exceptional circumstances that lead them to believe it would be in the interests of justice to use a conditional sentence in such cases.

 

[The_Falcon]

Under this proposal, federal legislation would be enacted enabling provinces and territories to legally prohibit all handguns.

A federal fund of $30 million a year over 5 years would be created to support the legislation. This fund would provide for local amnesty programs and would enable collectors and current handgun owners to be compensated, at fair market value, for their collections. Legal owners and collectors of handguns would also be given the opportunity to permanently disable their guns in order to keep them, turn them into police, destroy, sell or export their guns to licensed owners in jurisdictions that are not enforcing the ban.

Well, there we have it more liberal double speak at its best.  As much as the whole idea of a "national" hand gun ban abhors me as more appearing to do something when your not take on crime, this is even worse.  As I read it they are just enacting legislation that will allow each province to decide if they want to implement a ban.  Talk about passing the buck, but taking the credit.  I guess the population of Alberta is going to grow if all this goes through.

 

[Infanteer]

In 2004, the homicide rate jumped 12 per cent. Since 2001 handguns have accounted for roughly two-thirds of firearms-related homicides â “ up from approximately one-half in the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990.

Research also clearly indicates that guns, violence and gangs are correlated. Statistics Canada's 2004 Homicide report counted 81 victims killed last year as a direct result of their involvement in illegal activities such as drug trafficking and gang violence.

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, 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?

 

[silentbutdeadly]

didn't the liberals already waste a ton of money on something like this and now they think we are so stupid that there going to waste another ton of money on this! I guess we are if we vote for them!

 

[RangerRay]

Your handgun could easily be stolen and fall into a criminal's hands.

The same could be said about your car.  In fact more cars are probably stolen than hand guns and more people are probably killed or injured in incidents involving stolen autos than with stolen handguns.

Should we ban automobiles?

 

[McG]

So far, 82% of the responces to a Canada AM poll have been against:  http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

Even the letters to the CBC don't support it:  http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/letters_gunban.html

 

[squealiox]

as someone who's always been willing to put up with a certain amount of red tape to do neat things like own a gun or fly a plane, etc, i must say this latest news really pisses me off.
more to the point, were i inclined to disobey the law, i would be real reluctant right now about actually registering any other type of firearm now that we know for an undeniable fact that our govt cannot be trusted not to turn around and just ban them.
:rage:

 

[TCBF]

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

- I am sorry BKells, but your hoplophobic irrational fear of my private property is actually putting our society at risk by disarming it's citizens.  Remember, the police do not exist to protect YOU, they exist to protect society.  Firearms among the general population held for the purposes of hunting and sport shooting have a secondary effect of instilling doubt in the minds of bandits.  Take away the guns, home invasions go up.

Tell you what:  You and all of the other people who don't want civilians to own guns can all put "This is a gun free home" posters on your doors.

Deal?

No, I didn't think so.

Tom

 

[MG34]

Well, a friend of mine was just shot dead in Vancouver last weekend, so suffice it to say that I find myself warming to the idea of a handgun ban.   Couple of points:
a) Yes, this is intended to win the Liberals the urban vote (not just in T.O. either), and it will work;
b) Yes, handguns used in crimes are seldom registered and the laws already in place should have been enforced better, but imagine how much easier that enforcement would be if the police could know that every handgun they see is illegal;
c) Handguns (unlike rifles or shotguns) are designed for portability and intended primarily to be used against people.   Very few people live in neighbourhoods dangerous enough to warrant owning a gun for protection and self-defence can be achieved through less lethal technology (mace, tasers, a shotgun full of rock salt, etc);
d) Regarding the personal liberties infringement argument, the government can already seize my property if it's a kilo of cocaine or a switchblade.   Life in a liberal democracy involves compromises made in the interest of the public good; annoying for recreational cocaine users and handgun enthusiasts, but generally for the best.

You are an idiot if you believe that this legislation (if it actually ever passes) will prevent even 1 death or improve public safety. Since when are we living in a democracy?? A democracy means the government is accountable to the people....we do not have that in Canada,not for 12 years at least. Get off your misguided soapbox and engage your brain.

 

[TCBF]

"Even though the CCC says that you have the right to use reasonalbe force up to and including deadly force if you doi so you WILL be arrested, you WILL be incarcerated (if only briefly) and you and your employer will be forced to defend yourselves in a court of law.

And...even if your aquited of any criminal charges you can still be heald civilly liable for any damage to persons or property that you cause during the course of your duties."

- Okay, your first post said you "can't", now you say "You can, BUT:.." 

Welll?

Fact is, in Canada, case law is well on the side of those who actually defended themselves to the full extent of the law, but not necessarily those who CLAIMED they were defending themselves.

It is urban myth disinformation like that that causes most of this country to not know their rights to start with.

Hamiltongs - I am sorry you lost your friend, but if I could promise you his killers would be executed and in exchange all of us sport shooters get to keep our pistols, would you agree?

Because you just know that the sp_rmhead who shot him would get a gun anyway.

England and Australia banned handguns, and their crime is going through the roof, yet jurisdictions in the states that have passed "Shall Issue"  CCA laws have a lower rate.

Fact is, if you remove the urban inner city ghettoes from the American side of the equasion, the US murder rate is on par with the Canadian one.

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

The difference between the original trial balloon and the details is interesting.

A promise is only worth something if it is backed by credibility.  A Liberal campaign promise therefore is, to me, worthless - it exists only to influence the gullible and hopeful.  I suspect the initial flavour of today's release and the past statements of prominent party members regarding their opinion of firearm ownership in Canada more closely represent the true intentions of the LPC.

This prompts an interesting (to me) question.  If Canadians had to rise against an oppressive and dictatorial government, the weapons of choice would be long guns, not pistols.  In principle handgun ownership can be conceded without necessarily losing one's ability to defend one's freedom against an unjust state.  If a rifle/shotgun ban were proposed - either immediately or as a phased escalation - it would represent a decision point: acquiesce and accept living according to the whims of the rulers indefinitely, or revolt to regain one's essential freedom.  The question is this: would we be partly at fault for bringing that more difficult decision about if we didn't take every prior opportunity to send an unequivocal message to the political and elite classes - the message being that while we accept stringent guidelines (storage, transportation, etc) to encourage responsible behaviour, ownership is not negotiable?

 

[Old Ranger]

Slim,

Have we found the new party leader?

 

[Slim]

Slim,

Have we found the new party leader?

Tom...Deffinetly Tom!

Mind you I think we'll need a speech writer as Tom tend to gett ot the point arther quickly.

A poliatician needs to know how to waffle with rhetoric for the full effect!

 

[Old Ranger]

I'll second that appointment!

All in favor....