Gun Control

[White Doors]

Ban all guns except for law enforcement. That way there wont be any legal guns for thieves to steal. 99.999999999999999999% of people dont need a gun. The few that do, let them apply for special permits.

Why don't we just ban murder?

Seems more to the point no?

Ask Britain how their gun ban is working for them.

[eyeball]

Dare I suggest we simply stop manufacturing arms...

Oh never mind.

[M.Dancer]

Why don't we just ban murder?

Seems more to the point no?

Ask Britain how their gun ban is working for them.

Good Point.

Gun crime is down 13%, homicides involving firearms down 18%, armed robberies down 4%

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims...rime/gun-crime/

[White Doors]

Good Point.

Gun crime is down 13%, homicides involving firearms down 18%, armed robberies down 4%

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims...rime/gun-crime/

Gun crime? well that would make sense.

How is the overall murder rate doing? Or do we just care about the manner in which it is done?

To wit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

Edited January 9, 2008 by White Doors

[Keepitsimple]

Good Point.

Gun crime is down 13%, homicides involving firearms down 18%, armed robberies down 4%

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims...rime/gun-crime/

The UK gun "ban" was introduced in 1997. Since then, gun crimes have risen every year except for the last year - as you noted.....but your link also notes that they only recently introduced 5 year minimum sentences. Here's an article that describes why the UK instituted minimum sentencing - it was clear to them that the ban had no effect.....so contrary to hand-wringing Lefties and academics, these statistics seem to clearly indicate that the 5 year minimums have a downward effect on gun crime.

Blunkett said: "While we already have some of the toughest gun laws in the world, there has been an unacceptable increase in the flagrant use of guns in crime across the country.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/06...guns/index.html

[White Doors]

*pwned*

[M.Dancer]

The UK gun "ban" was introduced in 1997. Since then, gun crimes have risen every year except for the last year - as you noted.....but your link also notes that they only recently introduced 5 year minimum sentences. Here's an article that describes why the UK instituted minimum sentencing - it was clear to them that the ban had no effect.....so contrary to hand-wringing Lefties and academics, these statistics seem to clearly indicate that the 5 year minimums have a downward effect on gun crime.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/06...guns/index.html

So in effect you are saying that tougher laws enacted 4 years ago only had an effect last year. That may be true as equally as making access to firearms more difficult having an effect only as last year.

[Wilber]

these statistics seem to clearly indicate that the 5 year minimums have a downward effect on gun crime.

Course they will. How can you commit a crime with a gun if you are sitting in the slammer. Elementary my dear Watson.

[M.Dancer]

I would also suggest that strict gun restrictions coupled with severe penalties for gun crimes would have a one two effect....

[Keepitsimple]

So in effect you are saying that tougher laws enacted 4 years ago only had an effect last year. That may be true as equally as making access to firearms more difficult having an effect only as last year.

Well, actually no - it seemed to have an immediate and significant impact. The British government simply stated that they wanted to bring in manadatory minimums in 2003....but it wasn't until November 2006 that the Violent Crime Reduction Bill actually received Royal Assent and came into effect. Like in Canada, there was a lot of resistance from the hand-wringing Left and academics (yes, I said that before). Here is the important section of the Bill:

Section 30: Minimum sentences for certain firearms offences

219. This section amends the minimum sentence provisions in section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968, which currently apply only to the simple offence of possession of a prohibited weapon. The minimum sentence, other than in exceptional circumstances, is five years' imprisonment for persons aged 18 or over (or 21 or over in Scotland) and three years' imprisonment for a person aged between 16 and 18 (or 21 in Scotland). This section extends these provisions to other serious offences involving the possession of prohibited weapons, to ensure that offenders do not escape the minimum sentence where they are not also charged with the simple possession offence. The additional offences all appear in the 1968 Act and are the offences under:

• Section 16 (possession of firearm with intent to injure)

• Section 16A (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence)

• Section 17 (use of firearm to resist arrest)

• Section 18 (carrying firearm with criminal intent)

• Section 19 (carrying a firearm in a public place), and

• Section 20(1) (trespassing in a building with firearm).

Link: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/06en38-c

[M.Dancer]

Okay...

[sideshow]

I have to admit that I have not kept up with all of the posts on this thread, but if they are as well-informed as this one, then what this board is accomplishing is to prove how ignorant our populace is about this issue.

Instead of all of the bloody bickering about what everybody should do, maybe we should pause for one fraction of a second, remind ourselves to breathe in and out to replenish the oxygen in our brains, and realize that the gun control we have is strict, the penalties for gun crimes harsh, and when viewed objectively, we don't have a gun crime problem in this country which justifies billions of dollars blown on an incomplete inventory list.

While Wild Bill appears to want higher actual sentences (robbery with a firearm is automatic 4 years presently), he appears to have no idea whatsoever that we do have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. We have special sections of the Criminal Code for using a gun or an imitation of a gun in a crime which will get you guaranteed jail...consecutive not concurrent...no discretion in the judge.

We have definitions in the Criminal Code that deem most of the bb-guns that they sell at Canadian Tire (and other such retailers) "firearms" for the purposes of these offences, even though they are not firearms that need to be registered and can be sold to anyone (no license required).

F--k, if we put as much effort into crime prevention as we do into lobbying for laws we already have we'd have no crime at all!

FTA

Jesus, seven years of law school flush down the toilet? I think we do in fact have a gun problem, and maybe the registry is not being managed as well as some would like, but its still better then all these people running around without registered guns.

See, if the gun is registered by the law abiding home owner and it gets stolen, and then used in a crime, at least there is a trail (perhaps evidence at the theft scene) which can be used to add one plus one and make two......finding the criminal.

As for the bb guns in canadian tire and such, there is a psi level (basically the force involved in the firing) that designates if it is an "imitation' or not. so not all are illegal.

plus there are a lot of loopholes already in the leg that need to be closed.

guns have few legit purposes for the average person. people use them like they use hummers-small men needing big toys to compensate. very few people need a firearm.

[Wilber]

guns have few legit purposes for the average person. people use them like they use hummers-small men needing big toys to compensate. very few people need a firearm.

And relatively few people have them. Problem is, most of the weapons now being used in crimes will never be registered, not just because criminals aren't likely to register their guns but because they are of a type that can't be. My biggest problem with the registry is not the idea of registering firearms but that it is draining resources and being used as a smoke screen by people who aren't willing to deal with the real issues surrounding gun crime.

[FTA Lawyer]

And relatively few people have them. Problem is, most of the weapons now being used in crimes will never be registered, not just because criminals aren't likely to register their guns but because they are of a type that can't be. My biggest problem with the registry is not the idea of registering firearms but that it is draining resources and being used as a smoke screen by people who aren't willing to deal with the real issues surrounding gun crime.

BINGO!

Also, is it just me or is the registered gun = evidence trail thing completely goofy?

Scenario #1

Someone steals a gun from me (all of mine are registered), I report it to the police. Guy who stole it goes and robs a store, and then for some inexplicable reason leaves the gun at the door when he leaves rather than taking it with him (I'm no sociologist, but every armed robber I've dealt with took the weapon with him). Cops arrive, run the gun through the registry...assuming the serial # is still on it...and then VOILA!!!

They find out it is the gun stolen from me.

How did this help them catch the crook again?!?!?

Scenario #2

Someone steals a gun from me (assume registry scrapped and therefore no registration), I report it to the police. Guy who stole it goes and robs a store, and then for some inexplicable reason leaves the gun at the door when he leaves rather than taking it with him (I'm no sociologist, but every armed robber I've dealt with took the weapon with him). Cops arrive, can't run the gun through the registry. If I knew my serial # and put that in my police report then, assuming the serial # is still on it, then VOILA!!!

They find out it is the gun stolen from me.

If I don't know the serial # the cops will never know where the guy got his gun.

How did this harm them from catching the crook again?!?!?

Am I missing something? I could be...I just don't see what.

FTA

[Pliny]

BINGO!

Also, is it just me or is the registered gun = evidence trail thing completely goofy?

Scenario #1

Someone steals a gun from me (all of mine are registered), I report it to the police. Guy who stole it goes and robs a store, and then for some inexplicable reason leaves the gun at the door when he leaves rather than taking it with him (I'm no sociologist, but every armed robber I've dealt with took the weapon with him). Cops arrive, run the gun through the registry...assuming the serial # is still on it...and then VOILA!!!

They find out it is the gun stolen from me.

How did this help them catch the crook again?!?!?

Scenario #2

Someone steals a gun from me (assume registry scrapped and therefore no registration), I report it to the police. Guy who stole it goes and robs a store, and then for some inexplicable reason leaves the gun at the door when he leaves rather than taking it with him (I'm no sociologist, but every armed robber I've dealt with took the weapon with him). Cops arrive, can't run the gun through the registry. If I knew my serial # and put that in my police report then, assuming the serial # is still on it, then VOILA!!!

They find out it is the gun stolen from me.

If I don't know the serial # the cops will never know where the guy got his gun.

How did this harm them from catching the crook again?!?!?

Am I missing something? I could be...I just don't see what.

FTA

You aren't missing anything. They want to know where they are when it is time to come and get them.

[myata]

BINGO!

Aha, right why don't we just adopt our southern neighbours model? 5.6 guns per household, all legally owned.

No gun control (wait, how can you control them, guns, if you don't even know who's gotten them, when and how many - care to share fresh ideas?? insights maybe? please!!), super tough justice, and lo - crime stats in the sky high levels compared to the rest of the civilized world, which, humbly, despite all the evils of suppressing freedom and limiting individuals sacred right to shoot at will, impose strict limits, and even prohibit (God forbid) ownership of guns.

A mystery, truly. No, it should not be this way. The land of the free should be ideal for everybody to aspire to, and have all the best. And you can almost wish it this way, just think hard one, two, look around now and it's all different now. Everybody's got a gun in their pocket, another two in the trunk of the car, and everyone has become so extermely polite and friendly to everybody and the crime completely disappeared from the face of this planet (OK face of this land maybe - or has it??). Keep dreaming, good night!

[Wilber]

No gun control (wait, how can you control them, guns, if you don't even know who's gotten them, when and how many - care to share fresh ideas?? insights maybe? please!!),

You can only control the guns owned by honest people who are willing to register them.

Then there are these guys

[August1991]

You can only control the guns owned by honest people who are willing to register them.

On the radio in Montreal, I heard the mayor of Toronto calling for "national" cooperation to forbid handguns across the "nation".

As I heard him speak in English, with a peculiar accent, I thought that he doesn't understand Canada. Furthermore, I wodered whether his suggested ban would work in practice. Finally, I agreed with his simplistic idea. We must control the access to handguns, just as we control access to AK-47s, RPGs and tactical nuclear weapons. Where to draw the line?

IMV, you can keep a steak knife at home but you should store all your handguns in a supervised gun club.

You can only control the guns owned by honest people who are willing to register them.

By that logic, cars should not have license plates. Edited January 20, 2008 by August1991

[Drea]

Now, I don't have any stats handy, but I do believe that guns used by criminals are NOT stolen from honest gun owners. They are being smuggled across the border.

I have a good idea... why not put a 5000 km "zapper"? It would be like those invisible fences that keep dogs in.... if someone were to try to walk over it with something metal they would get zapped into next week. Yup, even that Rolex would get you zapped. Even the metal holes that you put your shoelaces through. Even the damn fillings in your teeth.

Oh hell, the arms manufacturers would just start making guns out of plastic anyway.

Seriously though...If a Canadian is caught with a gun he/she should recieve an automotic five years in prison. No matter what "reason" they give too bad. There is simply no reason whatsoever to have a gun on your person or in your vehicle. Guns used for "play" (target practice) should be kept at security laden gun clubs.

[MontyBurns]

Everybody should have a gun for protection just in case they get cornered by biker gangs, drug dealers, Jamaicans, social activists, etc. You never know when you will have to deal with these clowns. Better safe than sorry.

[Topaz]

I think the governments both provincial and federal should hire more people on the borders to look especially for guns and drugs. In the past, the news has said that drugs and guns have come across the borders in 18 wheelers and they should start there. I'm not saying ALL trucker are guilty of this, but some are. As far as buying guns, how many people would go buy a gun if they had to walk into a police station to do it? Hire a retire police to run it. I find it sad that some people feel they have to have a gun to feel safe. I waiting for the law to be no under 25 can illegally own a gun, is caught 25 years in prison or 10 in the military.

[Leafless]

You can only control the guns owned by honest people who are willing to register them.

Nice to know honest people do not become suddenly desperate or develop temporary insanity and do use their registered weapons in an unlawful manner.

Dream on Wilber, and while we are at it let's open the hidden statistics and find out what specific group or groups are respnsible for the majority of gun related crimes and deal harshly with those individuals.

[Wilber]

By that logic, cars should not have license plates.

You can't carry a car in your pocket. Besides I have said that my real issue with registration is the resources it takes away from other initiatives and its being used as a smoke screen to avoid dealing with real problems. This knee jerk cry to ban all hand guns is a perfect example

Anyone who believes that banning legally owned and registered handguns will keep guns out of the hands of gang bangers and other criminals has likely been smoking too much of that other banned substance which has also been so well controlled by banning. As a matter of fact they are directly related. One banned substance is traded over the border for another illegal item. Why? Because it is very lucrative and a ban will not do anything other than possibly cause the trade to be even more lucrative.

The Porsch guy in my link was a major provider but he is just one of many in this country. People like Myata would probably agree that his sentence was too severe on the basis that it is some kind of US style "tough justice" but who knows how many shootings and other crimes involved weapons he sold. They seem to think that dealing severely with these people will not discourage their involvement in this trade but increasing their profit margins will. That baning something which is legal will somehow stop something which is illegal. Odd.

[Rue]

Another Day, another anonymous shooting by an individual who's snapped, and git themselves a high-powered rifle. I say enough is enough... and it shows why Canada must not slack off on more gun control legislation.

...and the same reaction....one that reacts not to the problem but the symptom and a reaction that doesn't call for a solution but in fact a quick fix to hide the problem to make it go away.

There already is gun control. That is not the issue. One sub-issue, is that guns can get smuggled into Canada easily. That is not a gun control issue but an issue that deals with cross border control of the movement of people and goods. Unless you want every person coming across the border stripped naked and each and every piece of luggage and car shredded you want stop the smuggling of hand guns.

As well if you think you can stop every truck, every cargo train, every air cargo shipment and find these hand guns think again. Its not possible. There will always be hand guns on the streets. No one is arguing with gun control or asking it be removed.

What the politicians are doing is making useless noise to exploit the issue to make it seem like they care and have a solution but they do not.

Let's get real, the same politicians that say, put them all in jail, are the same politicians that won't raise the taxes needed to build and fund and finance the prisons that would be required, let alone the court rooms, and extra goevrnment services required to maintain all that.

The same politicians that decry violence, are the same politicians who cut funding so that children when growing up have no recreational services to provide them constructive positive alternatives when they are growing up so they do not turn to gangs and of course guns.

More to the point, what will you do censor all the music coming up from the South depicting gangs and gang members as artists and cool?

See we talk of putting security guards at doors and screening students. That's nice. You think that addresses the pronlem or the symptom? You think young people if they carry guns won't find away round the this?

I say it again. I personally believe in gun control. But no there is no miracle cure for this and certainly shutting down gun clubs which teach people how to be responsible with guns is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Gun clubs do not encourage people to use guns like toys or status symbols. People in target gun clubs are disciplined, focused people that is why they are there. They respect it and do not like the idiots who have these guns on the street use it was a weapon they use it as a method to teach themselves to be disciplined and remain calm and focused. A target shooter can't shoot a gun unless they are calm and focused.

Me I do not want guns on the streets. But we are talking hand guns in cities.

Rifles? Well no, no one wants them in the city, and me I can't stand recreational hunters who get drunk and once a year go up North and blow things up and leave a mess.

But we have to distinguish the urban cities and the lifestyle in cities from those people who live in rural areas who use rifles not as a weapon but as a way to eat and survive.

The law can not penalize genuine subsistence hunters or target shooters who are not the problem and never were.

What we are talking about are in fact young men with no respect for authority who carry guns as an extension of their penises. Its how they express their manhood. In a society where they feel powerless anbd marginalized this hand gun becomes their equalizer. Suddenly they aren't some skinny, pimply faced nobody, they have a gun and they are a big shot.

It has everything to do with how men perceive their weaknesses and what they do to try compensate for them.

Want to deal with the problem? It will take more then the usual, put them in jail with harsher sentences knee jerk reaction until next time.

It requires no quick fix, but long term programming starting with children in kindergarten and working its way all the way up the ladder. It requires recreational centres, community centres, after school sports, music and art, cultural, and other programs. It requires teaching young people survival skills so when they feel powerless they don't see turning to the gun and gang as the only alternative.

To do that requires no quick miracle cures, but long term projects that won't get a politician quick votes within his 4 year term of office. It requires parents who get involved and volunteers from the community to serve as role models.

Unfortunately its easier for people to simply sit back on the sofa and delegate the responsibility to others and want a quick fix to make something uncomfortable go away.

Aint gonna happen.

[Wild Bill]

I waiting for the law to be no under 25 can illegally own a gun, is caught 25 years in prison or 10 in the military.

Excuse me? You feel that serving in the military is a punishment??!!

I would think that the last thing we want is to have our military used as a dumping ground for criminals. Why inflect these lowlifes on good soldiers? How would you like to have to rely on some gangbanger in the next foxhole to protect YOUR back?

No, our soldiers deserve much more respect than that. Offering to serve your country with the potential of it demanding your very life is the highest form of honour. Dumping hoodlums into the ranks is not just dangerous but insulting.

I suggest we send these "monkeyshines" to work camps on Ellesmere Island. Let them farm for their food!