Gun Control

[myata]

<link>

Your story specifically mentions that most arrested gang members were released on bail. No evidence of lax sentencing of convicted gun criminals.

Bail is a complex issue that comes down, essentially, to the presumption of innocence. I agree that it very well may and quite possibly should be improved. Through complex legal process so that it'll stand possible right challenges. Not through simplistic "tough" slogans.

[White Doors]

Your story specifically mentions that most arrested gang members were released on bail. No evidence of lax sentencing of convicted gun criminals.

Bail is a complex issue that comes down, essentially, to the presumption of innocence. I agree that it very well may and quite possibly should be improved. Through complex legal process so that it'll stand possible right challenges. Not through simplistic "tough" slogans.

You asked for the evidence and you got it.

don't dismiss what you yourself asked for.

[noahbody]

Sorry. The source is a garbled collection of "data" that proves nothing.

Let me simplify it for you, people an overwhelming majority of people who commit crimes do not use registered guns, especially registered long guns. For me it is an issue of budget and being effective. This targets law abiding citizens instead of criminals. It accomplishes nothing.

Yet the police found it useful and recommended to keep it.

Police are on both sides of the issue. Julian Fatiano said it would reduce or solve crimes. So has it? It would be a good idea to do a police poll on what is a better crime prevention measure, getting and keeping criminals off the street (focus on more officers and sentencing) or the gun registry. What do you think the result of that poll would be?

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.

This has to do about common sense. If every person registered their guns, it would be useful. But they don't and never will. As a tool to protect the lives of police officers, the gun registry is a devil in disguise. If a police officer puts his/her faith in the registry he or she may end up dead. Agree?

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?

Well in Florida "touch justice" began in 1999. And minimum sentencing is working. The Liberals and the NDP also campaigned on minimum sentencing last election, by the way. Likely because it was the "morally" right thing to do.

[myata]

Let me simplify it for you, people an overwhelming majority of people who commit crimes do not use registered guns, ...

You can say that, but it does not follow from the quote you provided. Until there's a clear statistics for gun crimes committed with legally owned guns, you can say all you want. It won't change the fact that these crimes are common, because they are on the news all the time.

Police are on both sides of the issue.

Maybe, but association of police chiefs is not.

This has to do about common sense.

In whose common sense? Many people think that registry should stay. Police chiefs do. Fraser guy does not. If there's a complicated issue, before a minority government, that cannot by itself make laws, wouldn't it be a prime reason to have a public discussion and a decision of the parliment?

Well in Florida "touch justice" began in 1999. And minimum sentencing is working. The Liberals and the NDP also campaigned on minimum sentencing last election, by the way. Likely because it was the "morally" right thing to do.

Well, it's about fifth time I have to say it in this discussion, and the last one too. If it's really hard to comprehend, so be it. God bless you.

Here it goes, slowly: gun registry - is not - a replacement - of all other instruments - and policies - just one of them - and useful at that - according to police professionals - period.

[noahbody]

Your story specifically mentions that most arrested gang members were released on bail. No evidence of lax sentencing of convicted gun criminals.

Again:

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.

I have to assume English is your second language. Is that correct?

[noahbody]

You can say that, but it does not follow from the quote you provided.

It says exactly that.

Maybe, but association of police chiefs is not.

I think you answered my other question. English is your second language.

[myata]

It says exactly that.

<quote literal>

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.

<end quote>

....

I think you answered my other question. English is your second language.

What about over one third of firearms which were not handguns? How many of those were legally owned (at some point of time)?

What about unknown number of the handguns which were never recovered? How many of those were legally owned (at some point of time)?

And why is this "information" being presented in the form of a 5th grade sharade?

Problems with English reading comprehension? Or just basic logic?

[Wilber]

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.

It would depend on the circumstances. Certainly knowing there is a gun present could have an effect on the way the police handle a particular situation. If they believe a life is in danger they will do whatever they feel is necessary. The primary consideration is always the safety of those involved regardless of whether there is a gun present or not and that is often a judgment call that has to be made on the spot. If you mean can a police officer walk into your house without knocking for no other reason than you have a gun registered in your name, the short answer is no. In his words "why would I want to?"

As I have said before on this thread, I am not opposed to registration in principal. I even think it has its uses but not nearly what its boosters would claim them to be. I could even support a registry if I felt it was part of a comprehensive strategy, but it is not. It is a product of dogma. My primary concern is that the registries biggest proponents are also the ones who argue against enforcing our existing laws to anywhere near the extent allowed, arguing that it is US style "tough justice". Laws that were brought in by a Liberal government in 1995. If find that ingenuous, hypocritical and dangerous. No small wonder honest gun owners get upset when preached at by a group with such a two faced approach.

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.

You mean like this?

Link

How much you want to bet that a registered gun or even a gun that could be legally registered was involved in any of these crimes. Notice that almost all of these people are known to police and have records, some of them for gun violence.

[myata]

As I have said before on this thread, I am not opposed to registration in principal. I even think it has its uses but not nearly what its boosters would claim them to be. I could even support a registry if I felt it was part of a comprehensive strategy, but it is not.

Implementation of this strategy so far has been shameful and asks for any reasonable improvements that can be found and made. The dogma that Harpers crowd throws around a lot that because of the pathetic implemenation, a reasonable strategy per se has to be abandoned.

My primary concern is that the registries biggest proponents are also the ones who argue against enforcing our existing laws to anywhere near the extent allowed, arguing that it is US style "tough justice".

It does not have to be. A responsible government that seeks genuine progress in curbing gun violence would have adopted a multi-prong strategy. Including tougher sentences for repeated violent offenders; including stemming the flow of illegal guns from abroad; including better control over the legal guns sold in the country; and including addressing social causes of the crime, etc. I was prepared to give Harper a benefit of the doubt on this issue. But his moves on gun registry and generally gun control, show that it's not their position. More and more they appear to be bent on the single "tougher mandatory sentences" strategy. Which simply will not work (see south of the border), but the worst part is that they'll take down the tools that could actually work become very useful given right strategy.

You mean like this?

...

How much you want to bet that a registered gun or even a gun that could be legally registered was involved in any of these crimes. Notice that almost all of these people are known to police and have records, some of them for gun violence.

I don't know, Wilber. And neither Harpers government, no its proponents on this board would answer one simple question: how many crimes are committed with legally owned (at some time) guns. We know that it's many because these crimes are also in the news.

[Wilber]

And neither Harpers government, no its proponents on this board would answer one simple question: how many crimes are committed with legally owned (at some time) guns. We know that it's many because these crimes are also in the news.

That's the rub for you and you will ignore every homicide that is committed with an illegal weapon because that is all that matters to you. It's not about guns, it's about Harper.

[myata]

Nope, not true. Both should be addressed. Because both can and are being used to commit crime, almost daily.

Harper is in this picture because he does not say clearly and openly what his real intent is. If it's reducing the crime, why would he want to do away with useful tools and strategies against recommendation of police itself? If it's tough for the toughness sake, I want him to say it in the open. Not hide behind generic slogans.

[noahbody]

no its proponents on this board would answer one simple question: how many crimes are committed with legally owned (at some time) guns. We know that it's many because these crimes are also in the news.

Legally registered is historically about 17%, based on handguns stats, as long gun registration is recent. Since then, registered long guns have been used in less than 2% in homicides.

There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).

[myata]

Legally registered is historically about 17%, based on handguns stats, as long gun registration is recent. Since then, registered long guns have been used in less than 2% in homicides.

I gather, semantical difference between "legally owned at some point of time" and "registered" honestly escapes you? Talk about second language.

[AngusThermopyle]

I gather, semantical difference between "legally owned at some point of time" and "registered" honestly escapes you? Talk about second language.

Give it up guys, Myata quite simply refuses to be moved on this topic. You can show facts all day and this poster will either twist or ignore them, as best serves their agenda. I'm done with this, it's no use talking to a brick wall.

[noahbody]

I gather, semantical difference between "legally owned at some point of time" and "registered" honestly escapes you? Talk about second language.

Yes, I understand. What escapes me is why "legally owned at some point in time" is relevant to the discussion. Since you said "are committed" you are referring to the present tense. Only guns that are registered are legal.

[trex]

Looks like Myata has done an outstanding job defending her view, against waves of gun loving vigillante wannabees. There's no doubt in my mind about it either, as I've voiced here before. We require mandatory gun registration and safety training for all gun owners. Also a minimum 48 hours wait for picking up guns when purchasing, and I believe police notification during the purchase of either guns or ammunition should be mandatory!

Edited December 15, 2007 by trex

[AngusThermopyle]

Looks like Myata has done an outstanding job defending her view, against waves of gun loving vigillante wannabees. There's no doubt in my mind about it either, as I've voiced here before. We require mandatory gun registration and safety training for all gun owners. Also a minimum 48 hours wait for picking up guns when purchasing, and I believe police notification during the purchase of either guns or ammunition should be mandatory!

Actually to me it looks like Myata has done an outstanding job of ignoring facts and denying any view that does not suit her agenda. It would appear that you may be a little challenged in some area's as well. You go on about mandatory safety training yet it has been stated over and over in this thread that such already exists and has for years.

It's good to know that your arguements are based on a total lack of knowledge of the subject though.

[trex]

Actually to me it looks like Myata has done an outstanding job of ignoring facts and denying any view that does not suit her agenda. It would appear that you may be a little challenged in some area's as well. You go on about mandatory safety training yet it has been stated over and over in this thread that such already exists and has for years.

It's good to know that your arguements are based on a total lack of knowledge of the subject though.

Oh Yeah???

[noahbody]

Looks like Myata has done an outstanding job defending her view, against waves of gun loving vigillante wannabees.

Sorry I've never owned a gun. Never will. I'm just against high cost/low (or no) benefit initiatives.

There's no doubt in my mind about it either, as I've voiced here before. We require mandatory gun registration and safety training for all gun owners. Also a minimum 48 hours wait for picking up guns when purchasing, and I believe police notification during the purchase of either guns or ammunition should be mandatory!

You're not.

Edited December 15, 2007 by noahbody

[Pliny]

Looks like Myata has done an outstanding job defending her view, against waves of gun loving vigillante wannabees. There's no doubt in my mind about it either, as I've voiced here before. We require mandatory gun registration and safety training for all gun owners. Also a minimum 48 hours wait for picking up guns when purchasing, and I believe police notification during the purchase of either guns or ammunition should be mandatory!

Myata has done an outstanding job of being a brick wall. I award her Cement head of the month!

"Tough justice"? Am I out of line? Should I be kinder? Poor thing!

[myata]

Yes, I understand. What escapes me is why "legally owned at some point in time" is relevant to the discussion. Since you said "are committed" you are referring to the present tense. Only guns that are registered are legal.

Thanks to Harper's government, you cannot be sure of that. But if you're really interested to examine current state of affairs, you could find a comprehensive document, like this one from Stats Canada, not some ridiculous propaganda pseudo information Harper is putting on the government Web site, for shame: Crime Stats 2007. It shows that long guns accounted for close to 30% of homicides this year. Also prominent in assaults (~25%) and leading cause (44%) of "discharge firearm with intent" (i.e threateng by fireing a gun in a common language). There's no information on how many of those were legally acquired, but it wouldn't be a stretch of imagination to say that it's much harder to smuggle a long gun than a pistol. So, 30% of murders not worth going after?

Then, in your own quote, there was a statement that perhaps, the handgun registration should also be abandoned, for the same argument (inefficiency). So, I just want to understand, what is the real loong term goal here: doing away with all gun registration? Free ownership regime, like in the US (they too must have a police check or something when buying a firearm, if I'm not mistaken). You think that, plus tougher sentences, will result in a safer Canada? Think twice. Because that's what they have in the US. With much higher levels of violent crime too.

Harper is fanning out the general "crime" scare, while all the facts are showing that violent crime is actually going down. The problems in cities like Toronto, Vancouver etc, are almost all related to gang wars, and that can only be solved by specific targeted measures, which should involve, as an element, adequate sentencing for convicted offenders, no question about that. But mostly by painstakingly tracking and dismantling criminal organizations, one at a time. The Harpers response seems to be, first of all, doing away with the gun control regime. Which makes me think that perhaps, "tough on crime" isn't the same as "less crime". Tough on crime, in Harpers view, could mean bringing over US style justice. Perhaps it would encourage us to vote conservative more often. To get even tougher on crime, each time.

[noahbody]

It shows that long guns accounted for close to 30% of homicides this year.

Yes, and since registration, registered long guns have accounted for 2%.

Then, in your own quote, there was a statement that perhaps, the handgun registration should also be abandoned, for the same argument (inefficiency).

I would keep hand gun registration.

tougher sentences, will result in a safer Canada? Think twice. Because that's what they have in the US. With much higher levels of violent crime too.

I've already showed you that a similar tough mandatory sentence policy has helped reduce viloent crime in Florida by 25% since implemented in 1999.

The problems in cities like Toronto, Vancouver etc, are almost all related to gang wars, and that can only be solved by specific targeted measures, which should involve, as an element, adequate sentencing for convicted offenders, no question about that.

Exactly, gangs are the problem so let's use our resources to target them effectively. Apparently they don't register their long guns either, so let's stop pretending this is a solution in any way. All parties agree mandatory minimimums are needed.

Which makes me think that perhaps, "tough on crime" isn't the same as "less crime".

Gangs are the problem as you mentioned. As crime is their lifestyle, keeping them off the street means less crime. Letting them out, means more. Which do you prefer?

[Wilber]

noahbody

This isn't about guns, it's about Harper. You're waisting your time.

[trex]

That's right, because Harper wants to allow Everybody to have guns. He even wants little kids should be allowed to own guns. Next thing you know this whole place'll be like in 'Merika, where there's some places that you HAVE to wear a gun, or else you're not even allowed in.

[Borg]

Some day it will be here - I will be told I am wrong and I will be told it cannot happen.

Gun control at its finest. Personally I would allow anyone with no criminal record to own as they see fit. EVERY State with "Sahll Issue" laws for firearms has seen a drop in violent crime.

Borg

_-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is how it works in france:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

December 5, 2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...ORIAL/112050015

The French and their gun laws

By Paul Belien December 5, 2007

On Sunday evening Nov. 25 in Villiers-le-Bel, an immigrant suburb to the north of Paris, two youths steal a motorbike and go joyriding. They collide at high speed with a police vehicle that just happens to be passing by. The two youths die on the spot. Villiers-le-Bel is one of France's 751 "zones urbaines sensibles" (sensitive urban areas). These are no-go zones where radical Muslims hold sway. Almost 5 million people, or 8 percent of the French population, live in such zones. In May, Nicolas Sarkozy won the French presidential elections with the promise that he was going to reclaim them for the republic.

So far the "lost territories" have not been reclaimed. Following the death of the two boys, youths went on the rampage in Villiers-le-Bel. They blamed the two policemen in the vehicle for "murdering" the boys "because the police should not have been there." During three nights of rioting, several police stations, schools and shops were burned to the ground. When the authorities sent in the police, almost 200 policemen got injured — many of them by guns.

"We were attacked from all sides by youths armed with hunting rifles," one of the officers said. "The kids were shooting at us. I've never seen anything like it. It was like in a movie."

Meanwhile, a horror movie was taking place just around the corner. On that same Sunday evening, 43-year-old Thierry Deve-Oglou, a Frenchman of Turkish origin, went to the metro station near Villiers-le-Bel, the very area where the rioting was going on. He boarded the RER D, the metro line connecting Paris to its northern suburbs. Mr. Deve-Oglou took the train in the northern direction, away from Paris.

The suburban metro is generally considered unsafe, and the D line is one of the most dangerous, especially beyond Garges, the station after Villiers-le-Bel. "There are no guards and no surveillance cameras," a metro employee acknowledges. "After Garges there are hardly any passengers left on the train. It is then that the acts of aggression begin."

Mr. Deve-Oglou noticed that the metro carriage was empty except for a young blond woman whom he there and then decided to rape. He had done this before, in January 1995, on the same RER D line, in the same place. Then, however, his victim had not dared to resist. She survived the attack and was able to testify at his trial the following year when he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

This time, however, the victim fought back. Anne-Lorraine Schmitt, a 23-year-old journalism student and the eldest of five children from a Catholic and patriotic family — her father, Philippe, is an army colonel — tried to escape. Mr. Deve-Oglou stabbed her. She managed to hurt him with his own knife, but he butchered her with more than 30 stab wounds in the chest and face.

Mr. Deve-Oglou left the train carriage at the next metro station, but police officers noticed the bleeding man and took him to the hospital. When half an hour later Anne-Lorraine's body was discovered in the empty carriage at the RER D terminus in Creil, it was not difficult to find the killer. He was arrested the same evening. Soon the police was able to solve similar rapes on the same line D during the previous years.

Why had the police never questioned this serial rapist before? Why had he been released after his first conviction? The question haunts Philippe Schmitt. "The circumstances of Anne-Lorraine's death are devastating to us," he writes. "We do not dare to imagine the 'horror movie' that took place inside that closed car of the RER, line D. Why was such an individual, already convicted of sexual assaults, able to repeat his crime? In 5, 10, 15 years, everyone knows he will be free again."

Frederic Pons, the editor of Valeurs Actuelles, a magazine where Anne-Lorraine had worked as an intern, wrote on the magazine's blog: "When will this rapist with his knife leave prison? After 8, 10, 15 years? Our society must pluck up the courage to remove him from society once and for all. If we do not do this the fathers, the brothers, the uncles will. In the name of justified violence."

The next day Mr. Pons removed his post from his blog. His text was deemed an incitement to violence. It is taboo in Europe to say that if the state fails to protect the citizens, the citizens should do so themselves.

There is no Second Amendment in Europe. Even European politicians from the so-called "right," like Mr. Sarkozy, are horrified at the suggestion that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves against criminals. Last year, Mr. Sarkozy told French radio: "Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life."

The result is that in France only the criminals are armed, while decent citizens, even those as brave as Anne-Lorraine, perish.

Paul Belien is editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.