Gun Control

[myata]

Mrs. Brown was the head of a gang with 10 members. She sent two armed lads to deal some coke. They get busted and get sent to prison, where they both meet new boyfriends. How many gamg members are still on the street?

There's a law alread against criminal organisations and it was used in recent gang busts, like in Toronto and Ottawa. Next.

[blueblood]

A fine is okay with you? Thats what a by law would do. Federal law is the only way to go. It is all the way or no way.

I have no idea where "out here" is so I really cannot comment specifically.

But if you live in Alta BC or Sask, then you are in fact correct that you dont have the same level of violence

Its worse.

Murder, how about double pushing triple in Alta and Sask, but not BC.

They do I assure you. I drive up to my cottage every weekend and see the hunters heading north. They are quite easy to spot. Even easier when they come home, the antlers sticking out of the cab is a dead giveaway.

I imagine less people own guns in the city than in the country.Therefore more guns would be stolen in the country would you not think?

And you pass off the fact that other hunters, those who happen to live in the city, with a "How unfortunate"?

So in other words, everyone else should be subject, just not you ? No brotherhood for hunters no matter where they live?

Just so we're arguing the same thing, I'm saying bill C-68 should be replaced by by-laws. I don't think you get tossed in the clink when you don't register a gun, tell me if i'm wrong there. You'd get your gun snatched and a fine. When you commit an infraction hunting, which I think is under provincial guidelines, which is in my province of MB, you lose your gun, pay a fine, and if you brought your truck with you, bye bye truck. That's my defense for a by law.

The murders rising in SK and AB are occuring more specifically in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and Saskatoon. Which are urban areas last time I checked. I am referring to the sticks, which is why I don't believe a federal law is necessary.

Stuff and guns just don't get stolen out in the country. Nobody locks anything except gun cases because we don't have to. Call it a perk. I think more guns are in the city due to illegal arms and stubborn individuals who persist on owning one for "target" shooting. Like I said if stuff and guns were getting stolen like crazy and gun crimes were up like crazy out in the boonies then a registry would be necessary.

What I'm saying is, due to the amount of gun crimes that goes on in urban areas compared to rural areas, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Cripes I don't even know if the gas station or bank in my town has ever been subjected to an armed robbery, or if anyone has ever been shot. By-laws will accomplish this. You and I both know that what's good for someone out in Toronto may not be good for someone out on a ranch. A person from Toronto and a ranch will agree that murder is a crime and we have a federal law for it. A person from Toronto and a ranch don't agree that the gun registry is the way to go and I believe it should be repealed.

[myata]

There is a test. It's called committing a crime.

Not my idea of a safe community. I'd like to see the guy to did Dawson shooting cleared of his high power guns before he could do so much harm to so many people. There was no reason for him to have so many guns. This should become a thing of the past, period.

But maybe, you're right, in Harpers view. More guns, more incidents like this would make us more scared. More likely to vote Harpers crowd to bring harsher and tougher punishments. More like the US.

[guyser]

Just so we're arguing the same thing, I'm saying bill C-68 should be replaced by by-laws. I don't think you get tossed in the clink when you don't register a gun, tell me if i'm wrong there. You'd get your gun snatched and a fine. When you commit an infraction hunting, which I think is under provincial guidelines, which is in my province of MB, you lose your gun, pay a fine, and if you brought your truck with you, bye bye truck. That's my defense for a by law.

I thought, but do not know, if there is any imprisonment under C68. I thought there was. As for a by law they are usually as you described.

The murders rising in SK and AB are occuring more specifically in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and Saskatoon. Which are urban areas last time I checked. I am referring to the sticks, which is why I don't believe a federal law is necessary.

I am not for the gun registry per se, so please do not mistake me for one to remove anyones rights. 99.9% , or better , of gun owners are law abiding and fine with me having guns. I used to be against them , but not anymore.

But if guns remain a fed law, then it must be served equally. City town rural does not matter.

Stuff and guns just don't get stolen out in the country. Nobody locks anything except gun cases because we don't have to. Call it a perk. I think more guns are in the city due to illegal arms and stubborn individuals who persist on owning one for "target" shooting. Like I said if stuff and guns were getting stolen like crazy and gun crimes were up like crazy out in the boonies then a registry would be necessary.

They do get stolen , perhaps not as much per capita, maybe more since the cops I know up north say everyone who lives rural has a gun in the house. I dont know.

But what I cant stress enough is that you want to deny someone the same rights as you have. What is so bad about a city guy being a target shooter? They belong to a gun club and pay to shoot?

I would think that cops in the city doing rounds and come across someone cleaning a rifle on the front porch would get the serious treatment , whereas the rural cop would likely wave to the gun cleaning guy. The law is the same, the treatment of wuite a bit different, and I have no problem with that.

[blueblood]

I thought, but do not know, if there is any imprisonment under C68. I thought there was. As for a by law they are usually as you described.

I am not for the gun registry per se, so please do not mistake me for one to remove anyones rights. 99.9% , or better , of gun owners are law abiding and fine with me having guns. I used to be against them , but not anymore.

But if guns remain a fed law, then it must be served equally. City town rural does not matter.

They do get stolen , perhaps not as much per capita, maybe more since the cops I know up north say everyone who lives rural has a gun in the house. I dont know.

But what I cant stress enough is that you want to deny someone the same rights as you have. What is so bad about a city guy being a target shooter? They belong to a gun club and pay to shoot?

I would think that cops in the city doing rounds and come across someone cleaning a rifle on the front porch would get the serious treatment , whereas the rural cop would likely wave to the gun cleaning guy. The law is the same, the treatment of wuite a bit different, and I have no problem with that.

Why I said to repeal the registry and do the by-law thing, is to put everyone on an equal playing field in the first place and the people who want guns registered (most people living in montreal for instance) would pass a by-law in doing so. To pass a federal law that says country people can do this and city people can do that is ridiculous. You are right in saying that fed law must be served equally, which is what i'm trying to say as well.

What I'm saying about the target shooter is that he is more than likely living in a high risk environment for guns and precautions should be taken, other than that I have nothing.

This hopefully clears things up

[Wilber]

Where did you get that information? One routinely hears "charged with illegal possession of guns" on the news. That makes you state that police isn't doing their job?

So what, they are charged and then what happens to them, little or nothing. That's the point, we make all these laws with all these mythical maximum penalties and that's where it ends. The police do their job, it's the rest of the system and people like you who are full of hot air when it actually comes to doing what is required to deal with these problems.

There's a law alread against criminal organisations and it was used in recent gang busts, like in Toronto and Ottawa. Next.

Same comment as the first one.

I didn't say that. But I did say that guns with legitimate use should be tightly controlled. Sorry you didn't notice. Illegal guns (unregistered where legally required, or those that cannot be legally owned) should fall under another policy. Not necessarily heavy prison terms. A heavy fine will do. Double on the next offence.

One more time, it's not one or the other. It's both. If the ultimate goal is to reduce gun crime, rather than pump out fear, that is.

Fine shmine, fines are a cost of business to these people. You have to put them where they can't do business. It's like chronic speeders who have fast cars and too much money. Fines mean nothing and you don't get their attention until you stop them from driving. Even that may not change their attitude but at least they can't kill anyone when they are not behind the wheel.

Gun registry is not a miracle solution for the crime problem. There isn't any, not even supertough justice. It's one of the tools that with time and adequate use will help police keep gun crime under control.

No it won't because the people who advocate hardest for the registry will not face up to the real problems. They just use it to slough them off. They won't go the extra mile.

My son is a police officer, he uses the registry and he doesn't really want to lose it because it is a tool and they will grab on to anything they can get because the rest of the system sucks when it comes to dealing with crime. It is common to have convictions where the time spent in jail is less than the time the cop spent doing the paper work and in court to get it. I can tell you when it comes to a wish list of things that would make his job more effective, the registry is way down there. As a matter of fact he never even mentions it. He would start with just having the courts enforce what is already in effect. He mentions that a lot. One thing we don't discuss is maximum penalties. If I ever bring the subject up, he looks at me like I am retarded.

Like I said, I am not against registration in principal, I just think that those who advocate for it so strongly and believe in all these supposed benefits are living in a cloud cuckoo land and too many of them use it as a straw man in order to avoid addressing the real issues when it comes to the proliferation of guns on our streets.

[myata]

What I'm saying about the target shooter is that he is more than likely living in a high risk environment for guns and precautions should be taken, other than that I have nothing.

I understand, and agree wholeheartedly, guns are much more of an issue in some places than in others. But what's the issue with registering? How's paying a few bucks and filling out a paper once x number of years infringe on your privilege? Whether in the country, or city, a gun is a dangerous item that should be controlled. There's no issue with registering cars, maybe even beer kegs. Why registering a legitimate legal gun suddenly became an issue?

Here's what I think. There's no issue for responsible owners understanding how much harm a gun can do in the wrong hands. The issue is for the gun lobby, and the government that is sympathetic to it. Registration means paperwork means turning away some potential buyers who would otherwise end up with a gun they don't really need (or they wouldn't have minded five min paperwork and few extra bucks to get it anyway). Just the outcome we want to achieve. More guns. Less control. Tough on crime.

[noahbody]

In 2001 only 31% of homicides were committed with a firearm and almost two-thirds of these were with handguns. The RCMP has been registering handguns since 1934 but 74% of the handguns recovered from firearms homicides were not registered. Therefore it is obviously not working. Surely 69 years of registering legally owned handguns is long enough to prove the registry is a failed policy option.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/speeches/mar-25-2003.htm

[guyser]

My son is a police officer, he uses the registry and he doesn't really want to lose it because it is a tool and they will grab on to anything they can get because the rest of the system sucks when it comes to dealing with crime.

Would you be willing to ask your son a question? I suppose it matters where he polices , and I would like to know at least the city, but anyway that is not the question.

According to my source, a police officer , called to a residence where a gun is known to be present a la the gun registry, may enter the house upon arrival regardless of permission consented to.

For instance , Police are called because neighbours complain about a loud party. He checks registry, sees they have guns, makes the visit and walks right in. (otherwise he has to knock and announce but cannot enter) Is that true?

If so thank you, if not I understand.

[Wilber]

According to my source, a police officer , called to a residence where a gun is known to be present a la the gun registry, may enter the house upon arrival regardless of permission consented to.

Don't know to tell the truth. I'll ask the next time I see him.

[myata]

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/speeches/mar-25-2003.htm

I fail to see the point. Is (more than) 1/3 of gun crimes, committed with legally owned guns, not a concern? Not worth going after, unless someone fixes illegal guns issue first? Wait, Harper conservatives recently cancelled another intended policy, to mark imported guns. According to police, a useful measure. Could help identify illegal guns more easily. Too bad. What's on the upside though? What's being done to take the illegal guns of the street. Thanks to our neighbour we already know that tougher sentences just don't seem to reduce the number of crimes.

[Topaz]

Since the registery is to help the police know if that homeowner has a gun inside and if he does, why would he walk straight? Wouldn't that be kinda dangerous to the police of getting shot? Question, weren't the RCMP killed out west, killed by long guns or rifles?

[Oleg Bach]

Since the registery is to help the police know if that homeowner has a gun inside and if he does, why would he walk straight? Wouldn't that be kinda dangerous to the police of getting shot? Question, weren't the RCMP killed out west, killed by long guns or rifles?

Cops are our standing army. Guns - knives - rocks - base ball bats...or a motor vehicle are all weapons - procedure has to be changed as far as cop "saftey" - I suppose that we should have better procedure of troops in Afganisatan - and maybe armored transport that does not come apart with a road side bomb - by the way - wasn't his Shriber character supposed to supply us with military transports that were armored - apparently the product was inferiour and Malroney arranged the deal - Brian may be more dangerous than all the guns in Canada - perhaps the road kill taking place in Afghanistan may be connected to this big chinned crook and his neo-Nazi arm dealing friend from 14 years ago?

[noahbody]

I fail to see the point. Is (more than) 1/3 of gun crimes, committed with legally owned guns, not a concern?

Please read it again. It doesn't say 1/3 of gun crimes are committed with legally owned guns.

Wait, Harper conservatives recently cancelled another intended policy, to mark imported guns.

The guns are already marked with serial number that accomplish the exact same thing. So that policy accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Thanks to our neighbour we already know that tougher sentences just don't seem to reduce the number of crimes.

I assume you're equating tougher sentencing with the death penalty which is apples to oranges. Might be worthwhile looking at states that have implemented stiff mandatory minimums, like Florida. They did it in 1999. Their violent crime rates per 100,000 in 1998 was 938.7. It has decreased every year since then, with the exception of 2006 where it raised three points to 712.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

[myata]

Please read it again. It doesn't say 1/3 of gun crimes are committed with legally owned guns.

Sorry. The source is a garbled collection of "data" that proves nothing. How many murders are committed with legally owned guns? We know it's many becasue they are always on the news.

The guns are already marked with serial number that accomplish the exact same thing. So that policy accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Yet the police found it useful and recommended to keep it. I assume they are better experts in gun control than yourself (at least until you present your credentials) or that Mr X from Fraser Uni. So, I'll take their word against yours, sorry.

I assume you're equating tougher sentencing with the death penalty which is apples to oranges. Might be worthwhile looking at states that have implemented stiff mandatory minimums, like Florida. They did it in 1999. Their violent crime rates per 100,000 in 1998 was 938.7. It has decreased every year since then, with the exception of 2006 where it raised three points to 712.

No I mean the whole system of "tough justice". With longer sentences, more sentences, multi-lifetime sentences and death penalty. As a good Harper follower you're trying to hide the obviuos by throuing in meaningless numbers: south of the border - they have tough justice above and beyond Harpers' social conservatives wildest dreams - and they also have murder rate five times higher than in Canada (and ten times higher than in Europe). Go and and explain how tougher sentences alone will get us less crime. If that's the end goal - or maybe, it's tough justice for its own sake? Because it's "morally" right thing to do?

[White Doors]

All these solutions which would redunce the number of guns out there with time and persistence, would be very simple to implement having guns registered, but next to impossible without registration. What do they really want? To have less guns out in the public? Or have as many guns as we can possibly swallow, then supertough on crime committed with them? The second model does not work, see above. More guns means more crime, no matter how tough sentencing is. And if that's what they (Harper's Conservatives) want, they should tell us very clearly. Not hiding it in obscure decisions and changes of policy nobody supposed to notice.

Please, this is partisan clap-trap as are all of your postings.

I bet you have a picture of Harper on your dartboard.

Just to be clear, what you really want is confiscate guns.

Licensing people to handle weapons with our PAL is the way to go. registering the actual weapon is silly and a waste of money.

Tougher setences on gang-bangers would help too. the rest is just feel-good BS that does nothing.

[myata]

Please, this is partisan clap-trap as are all of your postings.

I bet you have a picture of Harper on your dartboard.

Once I hear that well familiar adage, I know that your arguments (if there were any to start with, that it) have run out. One out, next.

[Pliny]

The Joe Horn Law ought to apply here!

[Oleg Bach]

The Joe Horn Law ought to apply here!

What should be applied here as far as gun control is a civil attitude among the young..the law of "honourly manhood" - Yes Manhood - we have created a system where there is no honour. Manhood is dispised and loathed by social engineers - as if the leading male figure should be destroyed - so what is the results of this liberalism? I would confidently say that we have created males that believe that a gun is manhood - these culprits that gang bang are like screaming little girls in a rage holding a weapon...and using it with abandon...time to bring back manhood...those that behave like men - do not need weapons..those that are upright and true - strive for a civil societly - NOT - a fearful and despertate society that has formed in the Jane and Finch corridor. That is the real issue - that these young men who shoot and stab each other do not know how to behave like men - because you have destroyed and run off their fathers through your abusive liberalistic system supported by racist conservatives.

[Wilber]

No I mean the whole system of "tough justice".

What do you mean by "tough justice"? Enough of the slogans. Taking dangerous people off the streets and putting them where they can't harm others isn't some kind of "tough justice". It is self defense.

[Pliny]

What should be applied here as far as gun control is a civil attitude among the young..the law of "honourly manhood" - Yes Manhood - we have created a system where there is no honour. Manhood is dispised and loathed by social engineers - as if the leading male figure should be destroyed - so what is the results of this liberalism? I would confidently say that we have created males that believe that a gun is manhood - these culprits that gang bang are like screaming little girls in a rage holding a weapon...and using it with abandon...time to bring back manhood...those that behave like men - do not need weapons..those that are upright and true - strive for a civil societly - NOT - a fearful and despertate society that has formed in the Jane and Finch corridor. That is the real issue - that these young men who shoot and stab each other do not know how to behave like men - because you have destroyed and run off their fathers through your abusive liberalistic system supported by racist conservatives.

You have said a mouthful Oleg. We're taking this on a tangent but what's the solution? If it isn't a "Liberal" system supported by racist "Conservatives" what need be done?

[myata]

What do you mean by "tough justice"? Enough of the slogans. Taking dangerous people off the streets and putting them where they can't harm others isn't some kind of "tough justice". It is self defense.

"Tough justice" has been defined, or at least explained in the same post.

Nobody's saying that them dangerous people should let straight out into the streets. BTW I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that it's actually happening as of now, and wtih any consistency, to indicate a real problem. It's just that 1) it's not the solution; and 2) it won't work, meaning - again - not reduce the actual level of gun crime - in isolation from other approaches and strategies. Of which one is giving the police the right laws and tools to fight the crime; two is addressing social causes of crime; and probably many more.

Crime is a complex problem and will require complext and long term solutions. Pretending that it can be solved simply by tightening sentences, is wrong. Using that pretense to dismantle tools that can be helpful in the practice of crime control, is irresponsible and dangerous.

[Oleg Bach]

You have said a mouthful Oleg. We're taking this on a tangent but what's the solution? If it isn't a "Liberal" system supported by racist "Conservatives" what need be done?

What I saw as an abuse family law system that stripped away the rights not only of fathers - but of woman eventually - turning the children into wards of the state and "trained" through "programs" - generated by liberal parasitic social workers full of vacariousness and half baked idealism - as if all the problems was within the poor parts of the community were the results of "angry" fathers - and that through social engineering - they could get rid of the fathers and the state would husband the female - and social workers would guide the young fatherless boys to some sort of utopian ideal that in the end was a horribly failed experiment.

If - there is no justice and fair play - there can be no peace. The family law system is self serving and destructive - the crimminal system deals with the results 20 years later of this failed experiment and still supports the mistake made years back - Young men that are black and now white and brown are emerging and offending...Reform is needed desperately - agents such as Childrens Aid - practice bureacratic usery - Family law lawyer who once were driven by true and good feminist ideal have abandoned their ideals and now serve themselves - Most gun crimes are generated out of a frustration - generated by our judical system and broken self serving social policy. I would safely say that when a husband snaps - and kills with a gun -whether in a rural setting or urban has been tormented by paraistes supported by the state.

The system needs to be dismantled and totally rebuilt - but are to proud to face the fact that all has failed and the institutions are no longer of service - it's a justice issue - once justice is restord - poverty and the frustration and rage will start to subside - guns are used by unhappy resentful hopeless people - Hope must be restored..to all - Justice! How can a black dope dealer respect a court that he has figured out is corrupt - these young men are not stupid and see what they see - and act accordingly - violence does not always manifiest it self physically - there are those in charge that are hate filled and full of quiet violence -

and some sit on the bench - power is the generation of power outward to the populace - powerless people go for the gun - A fair playing field must be created, for all. People do not go nuts for no reason...violence is encouaged by our authorities - I saw with my own eyes where lawyers who wanted to "get" a male - revealed the secret address of the estranged wife..they were hoping that the husband would go kill her...and they could then justify their positions - I saw this with my own eyes - there are people who cause trouble and social mayhem - this should be addressed - the crooks within the system must be reprimanded or removed.

I have said a mouth full - and am most certainly off on a few tangents - but the point is - gun crime will decline once the crime withing the judicary is brought under control - if you show fairness and justice to the potential shooters - they will respond appropriately - we have lost faith in our fellows and creeping barbarism has taken hold - look at America..injustice breeds more injustice - and violence is the product. Do we want that here?

[Pliny]

What I saw as an abuse family law system that stripped away the rights not only of fathers - but of woman eventually - turning the children into wards of the state and "trained" through "programs" - generated by liberal parasitic social workers full of vacariousness and half baked idealism - as if all the problems was within the poor parts of the community were the results of "angry" fathers - and that through social engineering - they could get rid of the fathers and the state would husband the female - and social workers would guide the young fatherless boys to some sort of utopian ideal that in the end was a horribly failed experiment.

If - there is no justice and fair play - there can be no peace. The family law system is self serving and destructive - the crimminal system deals with the results 20 years later of this failed experiment and still supports the mistake made years back - Young men that are black and now white and brown are emerging and offending...Reform is needed desperately - agents such as Childrens Aid - practice bureacratic usery - Family law lawyer who once were driven by true and good feminist ideal have abandoned their ideals and now serve themselves - Most gun crimes are generated out of a frustration - generated by our judical system and broken self serving social policy. I would safely say that when a husband snaps - and kills with a gun -whether in a rural setting or urban has been tormented by paraistes supported by the state.

The system needs to be dismantled and totally rebuilt - but are to proud to face the fact that all has failed and the institutions are no longer of service - it's a justice issue - once justice is restord - poverty and the frustration and rage will start to subside - guns are used by unhappy resentful hopeless people - Hope must be restored..to all - Justice! How can a black dope dealer respect a court that he has figured out is corrupt - these young men are not stupid and see what they see - and act accordingly - violence does not always manifiest it self physically - there are those in charge that are hate filled and full of quiet violence -

and some sit on the bench - power is the generation of power outward to the populace - powerless people go for the gun - A fair playing field must be created, for all. People do not go nuts for no reason...violence is encouaged by our authorities - I saw with my own eyes where lawyers who wanted to "get" a male - revealed the secret address of the estranged wife..they were hoping that the husband would go kill her...and they could then justify their positions - I saw this with my own eyes - there are people who cause trouble and social mayhem - this should be addressed - the crooks within the system must be reprimanded or removed.

I have said a mouth full - and am most certainly off on a few tangents - but the point is - gun crime will decline once the crime withing the judicary is brought under control - if you show fairness and justice to the potential shooters - they will respond appropriately - we have lost faith in our fellows and creeping barbarism has taken hold - look at America..injustice breeds more injustice - and violence is the product. Do we want that here?

I understand your viewpoint.

I can only add that we are witnessing government in action and it is the character of government to act according to your experience. This is why I promote the importance of family, friends associates and community over and above that of government. Government is merely an agency of force.

I believe we really have to really look to a restoration of economic stability to build a just society - that's my short reply to a seemingly complex issue. It is simple really but made complex - erudition is important to important people.

[noahbody]

"Tough justice" has been defined, or at least explained in the same post.

BTW I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that it's actually happening as of now, and wtih any consistency, to indicate a real problem.

Calgary's new police chief says lenient sentences are crippling efforts to curb growing gang violence in the city.

"These are hardcore criminals that are continuing on. These are people who should be in jail and we are aggressively pursuing these guys."

Four men charged in connection with a Friday morning shooting in Dover have extensive criminal records involving violence in Quebec and Ontario, Hanson said.

"We recovered a loaded handgun cocked and ready to go -- an automatic," he said Tuesday. "One of the guys has not one, not two, but three firearm prohibitions.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...k=20410&p=1