Liberals want Handgun Ban

[FastEddy]

Don't think that a goodly number of  Liberals aren't sitting at home tearing our their hair out by the handfulls.

But don't forget that all four parties refuse to "Arm the Transit Police, Border and Immigration Officers and the Security Agencies and the Airport Police.".

If you think its bad now, wait till some fool decides to disarm our Police Departments like in the U.K..

Ban  Handguns and leave the Public at the complete mercy of the Hoodlums, boy they must have stayed up all night thinking that one out.

 

[UberCree]

The headliner should read "Martin announces handgun ban on all banned handguns."

"I have made a decision....  Crime is bad.  Guns are bad...  

Illegal handguns are in the hands of criminals and should be illegal.  Banned handguns should not be legal.  Therefore I will decisively ban illegal handguns."

This is in effect what he is proposing.

 

[Kirkhill]

statistics show that knives are more effective and don't have to be locked away. 

I'll see your knife and raise you a stick Mike. ;D  Short and light enough to be handy, long enough to gain reach, heavy enough to leave an impression.

 

[FastEddy]

I think we have to be clear: self defence is a lousy reason to own a handgun.

Not only is it a legal grey area, but if your handgun is properly stored it's not going to be much good "in the heat of the moment." Mine is literally stored behind 4 locks, with the firing pin and ammo locked in a separate location and the keys in yet another. I loathe having to gain access to my firearms because of the ordeal involved, which is the way it should be.

In my opinion, introducing a handgun to a home invasion situation is not going to improve the outcome for anyone. Besides, statistics show that knives are more effective and don't have to be locked away.

Well Mike, my only thought on that is, if some Perp. when or if, decides to pay me a unlawful visit, they are going to the Hospital minus their genitals and half their intestines from a 357 which I don,t keep behind 4 locks.

Knives, by the time if you are lucky, and able to take a defensive stand, you and your wife and kids are going to end with your throats slit. You don't have to leave it laying on the kitchen table, have it secured out sight and reach but available.

 

[camochick]

I have to agree with mike bobbit on this one. Bringing a gun out in the heat of the moment just doesnt seem like a good thing. Not only is there a chance you or your family can be hurt if the other person has a weapon, you could also be looking at jail time for killing or injuring someone. I think guns should be locked up. We hear all the time about a kid who was just playing with their parents gun and shot themselves or someone else. No matter how much people say they teach there kids not to play with guns, there is that chance that the curiosity will get the best of them.

As for this hand gun ban, I think it's silly. Guns are not to blame here, human stupidity is. Why not put more funding into policing our borders and ports and gang task forces in the cities? Why not make killing something you actually get some time in jail for? I think making it harder for these gangs to operate is better than outlawing handguns.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

I alwyas though using firearms in self defence is kind of a ridiculous catch 22.... and the whole self defence laws as a whole but thats my opinion.

Even if you do keep a weapon in the home, if you use it and manage to injure or kill someone trying to rob you, youll go to jail... so yeah, you can defend yourself, but youll go to jail for it.

Doesnt anyone else find tihs ridiculous?

Or in regard to the self defence laws themselves, a few years ago a kid I knew from school got attacked by another kid, but the kid on the defensive ended up seriously injuring the other guy, and then he got charged.

Where is the logic in this? You can not defend yourself, and get robbed/seriously injured/raped or otherwise, or you can defend yourself and serve jail time. I hope im never in a situation like this because either way its bad for everyone in involved.

I think if you can prove that the person was simply defending themselves and applied necessary force, nothing should happen to them at all. Not get a lesser jail sentence.... or is that the law now? Im very confused on this subject... any law majors out there? 

 

[Jarnhamar]

I have to agree with mike bobbit on this one. Bringing a gun out in the heat of the moment just doesnt seem like a good thing. Not only is there a chance you or your family can be hurt if the other person has a weapon, you could also be looking at jail time for killing or injuring someone.

Agreed.

Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The primary purpose of a handgun is indeed to cause harm to human beings, sporting and collecting are secondary purposes.

In a different region of time and space, perhaps.  Here and now, the primary purposes of firearms not owned by the armed forces and police are: sporting and collecting.  If Canada adopts carry laws, we might see a swing to acquisition of handguns primarily for the purpose of causing harm to human beings when self-defence requires it.

 

[Blue Max]

In BC it is advisable to carry a serious handgun (.40, .357, or .44) when hiking in the woods.  Bears love meat with the hint of pepper in the air. Of course it is very difficult to obtain a carry permit for a sidearm in the backwoods unless you have something to do with DFO or forestry.

 

[FastEddy]

Agreed.

Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you.

Maybe your not familiar with the trend today of killing the victims rather than leave witness's.

So what your saying is you would rather standby and let your wife and daughters be raped and the possibility of all of you being murdered afterwards, because theres a chance you would be arrested and might receive jail time.

Well I guess, each to his own.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Everyone has to weigh the risk of accessibility vs. security for their handguns. For me, the probability that my kids will get into a poorly stored handgun is much higher than experiencing a home invasion. The effect of either is likely to be disastrous to me, so a quick risk analysis says storing handguns safely reduces more risk than having it available in the event of a home invasion.

 

[BKells]

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.

Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

BKells, I beg to differ:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

and even more apropos:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well Mike, my only thought on that is, if some Perp. when or if, decides to pay me a unlawful visit, they are going to the Hospital minus their genitals and half their intestines from a 357 which I don,t keep behind 4 locks.

And when three perps invade your home, take your 357 out of your hands, find it conveniently loaded, and then empty it into you, what exactly will you do then besides bleed a little bit before breathing your last?  Or God forbid your kids (or their friends) decide to play with daddy's gun...

Safe storage reasons are in place for a reason.  Get an alarm system and a gun safe.

 

[Infanteer]

Explain why America, with their "right to bear arms", has the highest rates of crime, gun murder and everything per capita in the world?

From an earlier discussion:

"Many social scientists say that murder happens for a structural reason: easy access to easy-to-use weapons.  Many people also blame firearms for emotional reasons....

But weapons, it turns out, have less to do with murder than do the attitudes of people, and their system of justice, in accepting or rejecting murder.  The National Academy of Sciences concluded, "Available research does not demonstrate that greater gun availability is linked to greater numbers of violent events or injuries".  Rates of murder depend not on numbers of guns, but on who possesses them.  To reduce murder, the National Academy's Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behaviour recommended that "existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms" be enforced.

More data separating guns from murder rates come from Robert J Mundt's study of homicide rates in twenty-five U.S. cities versus twenty-five similar-size Canadian cities.  It revealed that among non-Hispanic Caucasians, murder rates were the same, despite the availability of handguns in the United States versus their longtime ban in Canada.

A classic demonstration that ready availability of guns does not, in itself, raise murder rates is a comparison of Switzerland, Japan, and England.  Every able-bodied Swiss man is required to keep at home, for life, a fully automatic rifle or pistol plus ammunition.  Yet among 6 million people privately owning 600,000 assault rifles, half a million pistols, and thousands of other guns, murders are extremely rare.  Even gun suicides are low.  Japan, with no guns, and Switzerland, which is heavily armed, have identical murder rates, 1.20 and 1.23 homicides per 100,000, respectively (less than half of the Swiss murders were shootings).  England's homicide rate, also with most guns banned, was 1.35 per 100,000.  In short, both in America and internationally, the presence of guns does not correlate with the murder rates....

When I started work on this book, I held the opinion that laws restricting handgun ownership were vital to curbing murder in America.  It only makes sense, doesn't it?  Not when one knows how men who decide to murder think."

Michael P. Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence; pp 119-121.

The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?  The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.  And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles, right?

The reason, Mr Kells, for the American's problems with violence (you are right - they are topping the stats for Industrialized countries) is due to its immense socio-economic problems that are usually tied to race.  You would be hard pressed to find urban ghettos in Canada that are as poor and dangerous as those in some US inner-cities.  Switzerland, which is also armed to the teeth, is fairly wealthy and has no glaring social problems - they have fairly strict rules on acquisition and ownership, but possession is never challenged.  Poverty and race issues are what is driving America's problems, not guns or the Second Amendment - this is where the problem needs to be addressed; taking lawfully acquired firearms from a private citizen does nothing to do so.

 

[Kal]

BKells, if you're going to make an argument at least have the facts to back it up.   Crime rates have steadily increased in England and Australian since the bans on most firearms, and in many instances have higher crime rates than the U.S.  However, if one looks at States with many CCW permit holders are some of the safest.  Same goes with Switzerland, 6 million people, 2 million firearms, many automatic and it is among the safest places to live.  To see people openly carry firearms there is not unlikely, either. 

I don't believe calling you a loser for your beliefs is called for either.

 

[TCBF]

"Agreed.Sadly in Canada you can't shoot someone whos breaking into your house with the intention of stealing from you, raping you or murdering you."

- Well, don't let me discourage you from not saving your own life.  I guess the gene pool really is self chlorinating.

This is my letter to the EJ:

letters@thejournal.canwest.com 
Subject (no subject)

          Show additional options

Dear Sir,

This is "Hillbilly Logic": Peggy-Sue is asking Elly-May why
she has a black eye and a fat lip - again.  Elly-May says
that her boyfriend, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob, beats her daily.
Peggy sue asks her why she doesn't leave him and get a new
boyfriend. Elly-May says "Well, any new boyfriend I get
might beat me too."
Thats Hillbilly Logic - that's Liberal voters.

And my letter to the ESun:


mailbag@edmsun.com 
Subject Ltr to the Editor

          Show additional options

Sir,

Edmonton Police Association President Peter Ratcliff stated
"Every handgun that killed a person started out legally
somewhere."
Okay, and every prostitute started out as a virgin. And
every cop charged under the police act started out as a good
cop. We could go on. What exactly is his point?

Tom

 

[clasper]

Well Mike, my only thought on that is, if some Perp. when or if, decides to pay me a unlawful visit, they are going to the Hospital minus their genitals and half their intestines from a 357 which I don,t keep behind 4 locks.

The part of the "handguns for defence" argument that I find most disturbing is this: unless you have been a policeman or been a member of a specific branch of the military, you have not received any training whatsoever in how to make a good decision in a stressful tactical environment.  In Canada (not necessarily in the US) if you legally own a handgun, you have presumably gone through enough training to prevent you from accidentally shooting yourself.  But you have not gone through any training on tactical scenarios, and you have not been forced to think through all of the different situations which may occur when someone enters your home uninvited.  An untrained and inexperienced individual in an extremely stressful environment is pretty much the definition of "loose cannon".  As an innocent bystander, I find that very scary (and I am speaking as someone who has had errant gunplay enter his home, while I was living in Louisiana- this is not a theoretical situation).

That being said, there are legitimate reasons to own handguns- collections and marksmanship most notably- I just don't perceive defense to be a good argument in most cases.  I'd be willing to support a ban on handguns if the statistics showed that it might help.  I wonder why the Liberals don't show the following statistics to show why their promise is a good idea?

# of registered handguns in Toronto
# of crimes committed in Toronto
# of crimes committed in Toronto with handguns
# of crimes committed in Toronto with registered handguns
# of crimes committed in Toronto with illegal handguns
# of accidental shootings with handguns in Toronto

 

[Jarnhamar]

Everyone is talking about stats for this stats for that, 50 out of 75 murders were used with hanguns etc...
So?  Applying stats to something like this is just silly. Murder is murder is murder.  
Someone in my hometown used a trick to kill his girlfriend.
A fellow a few years back used a crossbow (which i might add you can make at home) to kill his girlfriend.
People have turned airplanes into giant suicide bombs.
You can make pipe bombs at home with house hold supplies.

People are going to find ways to kill other people.  Drunk drivers once they've been caught enough times and have done enough damage get that blow job machine in their car. If they don't pass the test it doesnt start.
When will we stop looking at firearms as the bad guys? Regardless of a ban the criminals in our socieity will still get their hands on them.  I guess I sound like a broken record.


I gotta say I'm really dissipointed with some of the opinions of the soldiers I see.

I'm trying to see this from your point of view but I'm falling short.

Handguns are designed for killing therefore they are bad.
I can see someone who's led a sheltered life thinking this way. Someone who's exposure to life tops off at what their university or college teach tells them. Or what they hear on TV and the news but come on, your soldiers.
You've seen outside the little box we live in.
You've seen people who own a hand gun or a rifle because a few years back someone came into their home and killed half their family.  You've seen a guy up in the hills who owns a .22 cal pistol and uses it to kill partridge and grouse- his owly source of providing food for his family. You've met a guy who owns two revolvers which is the only thing he has left of his father.

But thats overseas, we're in Canada, it's different

No it's not.

Ever been to northern ontario? Ever see the guys up there in the woods trapping. Some use pistols for protection against bears (Stupid if you ask me but they do). Some people use them for hunting.
Some people love target practicing with pistols.  Some people like collecting them. Some people choose to use them for home protection.

I'm really surprised at some of your opinions and how you can honestly think that pistols are only used for killing. Thats about as dumb as when people get in our face as soldiers and say all we do is kill people.  

crazy

 

[Pieman]

I asked Santa for a handgun this Christmas...nothing too fancy though. If then ban does actually happen, then too late as I will already have one. I assume they aren't going to try and take away guns from current owners?