Handguns in Canada

[Shwa]

"he intends on killing someone else"

Yet I believe that most crimes committed with a gun/handgun do not end up in death. There are certain instances where there is intent to kill - like gang slayings, shootouts, etc., but for the most part - I would say - there is no intention of killing anyone. In fact, I bet some gun crimes that result in death result in manslaughter convictions. Are you saying that if someone had no intention of killing anyone, but merely brought a gun along for a 'feeling of safety' or 'protection' they should get an automatic 10-20 years?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would be interested to know how you arrived at the sentencing values of 10 & 20 year sentences as fit punishment for a crime where a weapon (any weapon or just a gun?) was used.

Any weapon, pick one two or ten, it should not matter. The reason I came up with this statement was to provide a simple point, which is weapons constitute a violent offense. I suggest that it should become a starting point for dealing with violent crime. The first change in a series of changes designed to convert from a legal system to a justice system.

[charter.rights]

Any weapon, pick one two or ten, it should not matter. The reason I came up with this statement was to provide a simple point, which is weapons constitute a violent offense. I suggest that it should become a starting point for dealing with violent crime. The first change in a series of changes designed to convert from a legal system to a justice system.

What constitutes a "violent offense" depends on the circumstances, and whether or not the frame of mind of the offender can be ascertained. That's why we have courts and a trial system...to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.

Arbitrary penalties issued just to make you guys feel good has no place in a civil society. If there is call for someone to be declared a "violent offender" then it must be determined in court (or some other fair and just tribunal), and not in some discussion forum where neither evidence or the facts are considered.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What constitutes a "violent offense" depends on the circumstances, and whether or not the frame of mind of the offender can be ascertained. That's why we have courts and a trial system...to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.

Arbitrary penalties issued just to make you guys feel good has no place in a civil society. If there is call for someone to be declared a "violent offender" then it must be determined in court (or some other fair and just tribunal), and not in some discussion forum where neither evidence or the facts are considered.

Bullshit! My point was that we need to convert from a legal system to a justice system, and you have just shown why that change is needed. You are attempting to debate the cause or intent of a crime. That is what the current system does, and we can see how well that is working. I suggest we make an arbitrary change to avoid the possibility of error in trial and sentencing. The possession of a weapon in the attempt of or actual commission a felony should constitute a willfull declaration of violent intent. Period!

[Argus]

"he intends on killing someone else"

Yet I believe that most crimes committed with a gun/handgun do not end up in death. There are certain instances where there is intent to kill - like gang slayings, shootouts, etc., but for the most part - I would say - there is no intention of killing anyone.

I think you're mistaken. Most times when some gang banger idiots fires a gun at someone they fully intend to kill them. Only their highly questionable marksmanship, luck, and good medical care prevent this.

[Argus]

What constitutes a "violent offense" depends on the circumstances, and whether or not the frame of mind of the offender can be ascertained. That's why we have courts and a trial system...to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.

Arbitrary penalties issued just to make you guys feel good has no place in a civil society. If there is call for someone to be declared a "violent offender" then it must be determined in court (or some other fair and just tribunal), and not in some discussion forum where neither evidence or the facts are considered.

When you get right down to it all sentences are arbitrary because the scale of sentences is determined in no more complicated a fashion than the way we've arrived at it here - because someone thinks that sounds like about the right penalty.

And we don't really care what the frame of mind of the person who decided to carry a gun is. The purpose behind this would be general deterrance in order to protect public safety. The specific justification you use to explain why you bought and are carrying an illegal restricted weapon is thus irrelevent because there ARE no legal justifications for either. And there aren't, you know.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When you get right down to it all sentences are arbitrary because the scale of sentences is determined in no more complicated a fashion than the way we've arrived at it here - because someone thinks that sounds like about the right penalty.

And we don't really care what the frame of mind of the person who decided to carry a gun is. The purpose behind this would be general deterrance in order to protect public safety. The specific justification you use to explain why you bought and are carrying an illegal restricted weapon is thus irrelevent because there ARE no legal justifications for either. And there aren't, you know.

You are absolutely right Argus.

[Shwa]

But there are several roadblocks to simply upping the sentencing. The first one is that in some situations, hand guns are legal. Secondly both intent and sentencing are pretty big factors with Criminal Code cases so simply sweeping them away is probably not in the interests of justice. We have a system built on precedent to balance against arbitrariness.

Just doing a quick scan of Bill C-10 and it looks like the mandatory minimums were removed, but I am not sure if this Bill is still active or what it's status is presently.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c10&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1

[wyly]

"he intends on killing someone else"

Yet I believe that most crimes committed with a gun/handgun do not end up in death. There are certain instances where there is intent to kill - like gang slayings, shootouts, etc., but for the most part - I would say - there is no intention of killing anyone. In fact, I bet some gun crimes that result in death result in manslaughter convictions. Are you saying that if someone had no intention of killing anyone, but merely brought a gun along for a 'feeling of safety' or 'protection' they should get an automatic 10-20 years?

that's naive, how can anyone assume shooting a gun at someone will result in wounding, that's pure fantasy the intent is death...and we're not talking about a legal purchase of a handgun for sport shooting, this the illegal acquisition of a handgun by a criminal who has no intention of ever visiting a shooting range...

[Keepitsimple]

We have a system built on precedent to balance against arbitrariness.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c10&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1

We have a system that has been abused due to "precedent". Sentencing has become the lowest common denominator. A defense lawyer pours through cases looking for a similar (but it can never be identical) case that has given a lax penalty and bingo, that's often what the sentence becomes. It takes only one lax ruling to start the precedent ball rolling. That's exactly how we ended up with 2 for 1 and 3 for 1 credits. At first, it was because of the decrepit conditions at the 1850's Don Jail in Toronto......but then it morphed into "personal hardship" like being held more than a bus ride away from family. Each precedent diluted the spirit of the original sentencing intent. That's why reasonable mandatory minimums are so important.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

But there are several roadblocks to simply upping the sentencing. The first one is that in some situations, hand guns are legal.

Carrying a concealed weapon is illegal without a (very rarely given) permit. But we can play with the wording all you want to ensure fairness as long as it acts as a general deterrance. I'm well aware that there are certain people, otherwise law-abiding, who carry firearms for protection. Frankly, my target are criminals who carry them. Therefore, I would be willing to amend the law so that the mandatory sentences only apply to people who already had a criminal record or who used the weapon in the commission of an indictable offense.

Second, I think we also need mandatory sentences for those who smuggle and sell restricted weapons. We already have a scale of sentencing which allows for severe sentences for these offenses, but no judge, to my knowledge, has ever been willing to apply one. I would also suggest a mandatory sentence for those who purchase/posess a restricted weapon if they already have a prior criminal record. Again, we have a sentence structure for this offense which allows for a severe sentence, but to my knowledge, no judge has ever been willing to apply it.

[Cuzzin E]

Let everyone own a handgun and it'll all suss out in the end.

Arm the homeless

[dlkenny]

that's naive, how can anyone assume shooting a gun at someone will result in wounding, that's pure fantasy the intent is death...and we're not talking about a legal purchase of a handgun for sport shooting, this the illegal acquisition of a handgun by a criminal who has no intention of ever visiting a shooting range...

So the woman carrying a gun because she walks home alone should do time? I agree that people shoot at other people with the intent of killing but I don't agree that just because someone is carrying heat that they should be automatically guilty. The law reads that in self defense we have a right to use any amount of force required to overcome a threat, whether real or percieved, up to and including the use of lethal force.

[dlkenny]

Carrying a concealed weapon is illegal without a (very rarely given) permit. But we can play with the wording all you want to ensure fairness as long as it acts as a general deterrance. I'm well aware that there are certain people, otherwise law-abiding, who carry firearms for protection. Frankly, my target are criminals who carry them. Therefore, I would be willing to amend the law so that the mandatory sentences only apply to people who already had a criminal record or who used the weapon in the commission of an indictable offense.

Second, I think we also need mandatory sentences for those who smuggle and sell restricted weapons. We already have a scale of sentencing which allows for severe sentences for these offenses, but no judge, to my knowledge, has ever been willing to apply one. I would also suggest a mandatory sentence for those who purchase/posess a restricted weapon if they already have a prior criminal record. Again, we have a sentence structure for this offense which allows for a severe sentence, but to my knowledge, no judge has ever been willing to apply it.

Exactly. The laws are already in place but are rarely used.

[Wilber]

So the woman carrying a gun because she walks home alone should do time? I agree that people shoot at other people with the intent of killing but I don't agree that just because someone is carrying heat that they should be automatically guilty. The law reads that in self defense we have a right to use any amount of force required to overcome a threat, whether real or perceived, up to and including the use of lethal force.

So how big a gun should she be allowed to carry in order "to use any amount of force required to overcome a threat, whether real or perceived"? Say she perceives a threat that requires a C7 or AK74 to overcome? Would that be OK with you? Where do you draw the line, or do you have one?

[wyly]

So the woman carrying a gun because she walks home alone should do time? I agree that people shoot at other people with the intent of killing but I don't agree that just because someone is carrying heat that they should be automatically guilty. The law reads that in self defense we have a right to use any amount of force required to overcome a threat, whether real or percieved, up to and including the use of lethal force.

she has no permit to carry or own it the gun is illegal, YES throw her arse in jail

[Shwa]

"that's naive, how can anyone assume shooting a gun at someone will result in wounding, that's pure fantasy the intent is death"

Man 'o man, do you need a lesson in English or a logic course or something?

Using a gun/handgun in the commission of a crime does not necessarily mean discharging said firearm. Get it? That means waving a handgun in someone's face while you are robbing them is using a firearm in the commission of a crime. How often does this sort of thing happen compared to when a firearm is discharged and, when it is, results in injury or death?

Here is the Criminal Code of Canada link about 'Use Offences':

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III-gb:s_85

Try and keep up will ya? Sheesh...

[Shwa]

Carrying a concealed weapon is illegal without a (very rarely given) permit. But we can play with the wording all you want to ensure fairness as long as it acts as a general deterrance. I'm well aware that there are certain people, otherwise law-abiding, who carry firearms for protection. Frankly, my target are criminals who carry them. Therefore, I would be willing to amend the law so that the mandatory sentences only apply to people who already had a criminal record or who used the weapon in the commission of an indictable offense.

Second, I think we also need mandatory sentences for those who smuggle and sell restricted weapons. We already have a scale of sentencing which allows for severe sentences for these offenses, but no judge, to my knowledge, has ever been willing to apply one. I would also suggest a mandatory sentence for those who purchase/posess a restricted weapon if they already have a prior criminal record. Again, we have a sentence structure for this offense which allows for a severe sentence, but to my knowledge, no judge has ever been willing to apply it.

I'll have to agree with you here Argus - makes good sense.

However, since everyone - even scumbag gang bangers - deserve a defence, we still have to allow for the punishment to fit the crime. But deterrence is problematic right? We have mental case youngsters in ghetto projects in Toronto that will shoot someone in the face and still not care what the minimum sentences are. They do it. Get out and do it again. I know that some recent cases have resulted in heavy sentences - but for crimes committed years ago. The deterrent factor is decreased with time passed IMO and let's not forget the 2-4-1 for time served having an effect on minimum sentencing.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'll have to agree with you here Argus - makes good sense.

However, since everyone - even scumbag gang bangers - deserve a defense, we still have to allow for the punishment to fit the crime. But deterrence is problematic right? We have mental case youngsters in ghetto projects in Toronto that will shoot someone in the face and still not care what the minimum sentences are. They do it. Get out and do it again. I know that some recent cases have resulted in heavy sentences - but for crimes committed years ago. The deterrent factor is decreased with time passed IMO and let's not forget the 2-4-1 for time served having an effect on minimum sentencing.

Why not just add possession of a restricted weapon without being in possession of a permit for said restricted weapon to be determined as a weapons offense carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Do that and then the cops can start making a dent in the gang bangers. All they have to do is see a gang and probable cause would lead them to a search for a weapons offense. All we need do then is draw up a list of restricted weapons and the problem would begin to go away in short order.

[Shwa]

Restricted weapons are defined clearly enough in the Criminal Code. The problem is - even with minimum sentences - is that gang bangers don't seem to care about consequences. I mean, some of them might, but anyone that walks up to someone else and shoots them in the face is clearly not thinking in terms of consequences.

What I would also like to see is the penalty for accomplices increased. I kind of like the way it is in the US where some states will charge you with capital murder even if you are not the shooter. One of the drawbacks here is trying to determine who the shooter was and gang bangers now run in threes. Charge them all with the same crime. It might not act as a deterrent, but it will take two more scumbags off the streets at the same time. And I am OK with that.

[PocketRocket]

All previous arguments aside, an anecdote.

I've handled rifles and shotguns from a very early age, and am quite proficient with both.

My oldest brother (13 yrs older than I) has had handguns since I was about 10 yrs old.

I remember him telling me one time that I probably couldn't hit him from 20 feet using a handgun.

Well, I never tried to hit HIM, but when he handed me his handgun and said "Shoot that can", I was VERY surprised to miss. With a rifle, at that close range (about 35 feet) it was an unmissable target. Hell, at 3 times the range, it was unmissable. But with a handgun, my shot went well clear.

So, I took measure of how far wide my shot went, tried again. Closer. Third time I had my target, and thereafter was pretty much on the money. But the shots tended to wander.

Never forgot that lesson.

To someone without the amount of experience with guns that I already had at that point, it would probably have taken a lot longer to figure out what they were doing wrong and correct it.

Where I was going with this is simply that putting handguns in people's pockets/purses, etc may cause more harm than good in that if they pull out the weapon and shoot "to protect" themselves, a shot going wide could take out a bystander.

The other thing is that without a proper holster of some sort, in many cases it would take too much time to get the weapon out of concealment for it to actually be useful, and in trying to get at the weapon, it could easily discharge with embarrassing, and possibly deadly, consequences to the owner.

If, and I mean IF we are going to allow conceal/carry, there should be minimum mandatory training which involves LOTS of time on a shooting range, and certification that the person can indeed hit a reasonable-size target at a predetermined range, say a football at 20 paces, consistently, and do so WITHOUT taking a long time to set their stance, aim and so forth, because in a threat situation, they would not have time to carefully aim with the two-hand grip. IOW, draw, aim, fire quickly and accurately, or no license to carry.

But better than this, I think they should legalize mace/pepper spray for people to carry. Draw up severe laws that restrict their use so that teenage girls are not indiscriminately hosing down ex-boyfriends who dumped them or something. Sprays of these sorts would be easier to use than a handgun, far less lethal, very effective at close range, and a hell of a lot easier to conceal, not to mention could be kept in-hand when one feel he/she is going to entering a less-than-safe area, ie; dark parking-lot.

[eyeball]

Bullshit! My point was that we need to convert from a legal system to a justice system, and you have just shown why that change is needed. You are attempting to debate the cause or intent of a crime. That is what the current system does, and we can see how well that is working. I suggest we make an arbitrary change to avoid the possibility of error in trial and sentencing. The possession of a weapon in the attempt of or actual commission a felony should constitute a willfull declaration of violent intent. Period!

You clearly want our justice system converted into a vengence system and as Charter Rights pointed out one that's apparenty based on simply making you and presumably society feel good or vindicated or something. The problem I have with this is not knowing where or when this desire stops. There's a very real slippery slope here, crime is going down yet all this hoopla about cracking down and getting tough is based on believing its going the other way. Every crime or lenient sounding sentence is like a new galvanizing event resulting in even louder calls to crack down harder and get tougher than ever. Throw in the well established propensity of politicians to stoke a fear and loathing of crime at election time... and where does it all stop?

The most frustrating thing about all this is how little effort or even thought that the vindictive classes give to preventing the type of crimes that encourage the greatest level of gun use in the first place, like ending drug prohibition.

It seems we're doing everything we can to ensure there is a steady supply of criminals by maintaining the economic incentives to get into crime. We're vastly expanding our prison infrastructure, creating mandatory sentencing, increasing those sentences, and now we're apparently going to make it even easier to own a gun...

This is just nuts. Where does it all stop?

Edited November 5, 2009 by eyeball

[wyly]

"that's naive, how can anyone assume shooting a gun at someone will result in wounding, that's pure fantasy the intent is death"

Man 'o man, do you need a lesson in English or a logic course or something?

Using a gun/handgun in the commission of a crime does not necessarily mean discharging said firearm. Get it? That means waving a handgun in someone's face while you are robbing them is using a firearm in the commission of a crime. How often does this sort of thing happen compared to when a firearm is discharged and, when it is, results in injury or death?

Here is the Criminal Code of Canada link about 'Use Offences':

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III-gb:s_85

Try and keep up will ya? Sheesh...

get this I DON'T CARE what the criminal code says, it is wrong...if someone has an illegal handgun he/she is saying they have willingness to kill if you do not comply, our government is putting terrorists in prison for intending to kill others even though they have killed no one...robbery with a handgun is no different, they are threatening to kill if their demands are not met, 20 yrs seems fair to me...

the entire debate is about illegal handguns, control and punishment do try and keep up...

[Shwa]

"our government is putting terrorists in prison for intending to kill others even though they have killed no one...robbery with a handgun is no different"

Uh-huh. Equating the threat or intent of violence to a large population with an individual robbery. I can see now why you believe the Criminal Code of Canada is wrong.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Handguns are simply property. So is booze and dope or what have you. Anything can be used improperly and the effects can cause harm. The thing to keep in mind is that in order for anything to happen, a human being must be responsible for the action. Unless I am wrong and some hand gun has sprouted legs and walked off to commit a crime, then we are barking up the wrong tree.