Gun Control

[g_bambino]

You suggested the idea of a 20 year addition to the sentence for firearm use hadn't worked in other jurisidctions. I want to know which jurisdictions have tried it so I can check their results.

Not quite. I suggested the idea of ever increasing jail times for crimes committed with firearms has failed, on its own, to significantly stem crimes committed with firearms. Despite having hefty sentences for just about every crime imaginable, including those involving guns, the US, with prevalent gun ownership, still has the highest rate of homicides in the developed world, 75% of which are committed using guns.

I mentioned the situation in Australia, which has a lower rate than Canada of homicides using guns, and my experiences there, but it was ignored.

[segnosaur]

How about we just accept that as a society that values a certain amount of freedom, there is a risk of such incidents happening. Just as with backyard swimming pools and private automobile use, there will always be tragic deaths. At best we can tinker with the rules to reduce the risk, but we will probably always have incidents like the Montreal shootings.

I accept that, I've never said otherwise.

Ummm... wait a second, you never accepted the risk from guns... instead, you've proposed eliminating home storage as a way to try to reduce the risk of mass shootings. That's not "accepting the risk"... its proposing a major shift in gun laws.

Politicians are in the business of getting elected. If they came out and said "We'll never stop all tragic shooting deaths" they will likely loose to the politician who makes the claim (probably falsely) that he "Has a plan to make us safe".

If voters are so stupid as to always fall for unrealistic promises where do they get the smarts to accept hard realities?

What makes you think voters ever do "accept hard realities"? I may be highly cynical, but I don't often have a lot of faith in the ability of people to think rationally/logically.

Ummm... I find it ironic that you would ask why we don't "Accept the deaths/injury that guns cause". Did you not at one point call for the storage of firearms only at central armories? (Yeah, while technically allowing "private ownership", it pretty much curtails the usefulness/enjoyment most would get from such ownership.)

They still get to go target shooting and hunting.

Your generosity in allowing people to go "target shooting and hunting" is noted. You are such a magnanimous individual to grant people such freedoms.

(sarcasm intended)

While you may think its acceptable to grant those freedoms only, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Individuals who may want to collect guns (as a hobby) will think otherwise. (Not to mention the fact that any hunters will probably find the idea of having to go to a central armory very inconvenient, depending on when/where they hunt.)

So, what if I said "You can't store your cars at home.... but you can store your private car at a central government lot... You can still go for Sunday drives though." Would you find that acceptable?

People who fly planes recreationally aren't allowed to park their planes in their driveway and use the street as a runway. Why not Mr. Double Standard?

Actually, there is no double standard.

You cannot land planes on public roadways because you are not the owner of that road. (Similarly, I have no problem banning the use of firearms on city streets, because such areas are held in common.) However, you do have the right to store airplanes on your own property, and to use your own property for takeoffs and landings, assuming you are not in a major air traffic corridor. (During a recent air show I talked to a couple of pilots who had farm land where they stored their planes.)

[segnosaur]

Yeah that's right, there's a conspiracy here. The police chiefs don't really care about their staff, they only care about making liberals look good.

Ummm... who said there had to be a "conspiracy"? When you get to the position of "chief of police", there is a certain amount of political baggage that comes with the position. People in that position might be interested in protecting their own position/reputation (and that includes supporting an ineffective gun registry).

Same goes for the police union. Lord knows how they support liberals, and don't really represent the officers.

Already pointed out that Unions may just be giving the most voice/attention to people most involved with union activities. Officers who (for whatever reason) dislike union activism will probably have less weight given to their opinions.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Despite having hefty sentences for just about every crime imaginable, including those involving guns, the US, with prevalent gun ownership, still has the highest rate of homicides in the developed world, 75% of which are committed using guns.

Almost true....75% of US homicides involving firearms are committed with handguns. Firearms (guns) in general are involved in about 67% of US homicides according to official census data. The United States does not have the highest homicide rate in the developed world : http://chartsbin.com/view/ueh

TYPE OF WEAPON OR CAUSE OF DEATH \2

 Characteristic	    2000	2005	2006	2007
   Murders, total  	13,230	14,965	15,087	14,831

Total firearms	8,661	10,158	10,225	10,086	
 Handguns 	6,778	7,565	7,836	7,361	
 Rifles	411	445	438	450	
 Shotguns	485	522	490	455	
 Other not specified or 					
  type unknown	53	138	107	115	
Firearms, type not 					
stated	     934	1,488	1,354	1,705	
Knives or cutting					
instruments 	1,782	1,920	1,830	1,796	
Blunt objects   617	608	618	647	
Personal weapons 927	905	841	854	
Poison	       8	9	12	10	
Explosives	9	2	1	1	
Fire 	     134	125	117	130	
Narcotics	20	46	48	49	
Drowning	15	20	12	12	
Strangulation	166	118	137	134	
Asphyxiation	92	96	106	108	
All other \5	799	958	1,140	1,004	

Edited September 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Evening Star]

Wait, which countries that rank above the US on that chart are you including in the developed world? Brazil?

[bush_cheney2004]

Wait, which countries that rank above the US on that chart are you including in the developed world? Brazil?

I was thinking more of Russia, but the definition is fluid, and often limited to a few countries to make the US look like the worst for the anti-gun agenda. Murder is murder...no?

[segnosaur]

The United States does not have the highest homicide rate in the developed world : http://chartsbin.com/view/ueh

Just wondering... what exactly are you considering to be the "developed world"?

I took a look at the reference you provided, and while the U.S. certainly wasn't the highest ranked in terms of homicides, about the only "developed" countries ahead of it in the list that I noticed were former soviet bloc countries and a few south american countries (like Brazil); however, many might not consider those countries to be 'developed'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just wondering... what exactly are you considering to be the "developed world"?

As above, I consider Russia to be a developed country in every respect.

I took a look at the reference you provided, and while the U.S. certainly wasn't the highest ranked in terms of homicides, about the only "developed" countries ahead of it in the list that I noticed were former soviet bloc countries and a few south american countries (like Brazil); however, many might not consider those countries to be 'developed'.

BRIC countries are developed depending on the criteria. I do not pretend to sanction any definition, but I do maintain it should be consistently applied.

Raw body counts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

Edited September 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Ummm... wait a second, you never accepted the risk from guns... instead, you've proposed eliminating home storage as a way to try to reduce the risk of mass shootings. That's not "accepting the risk"... its proposing a major shift in gun laws.

Ummm...I said I accept there will always be tragic deaths and that we will probably always have incidents like the Montreal shootings. Like you I don't accept the idea the registry will do much if anything to prevent these incidents but I do think control will do a fair bit. They should likewise reduce the number of domestic homicide/suicides with guns.

What makes you think voters ever do "accept hard realities"? I may be highly cynical, but I don't often have a lot of faith in the ability of people to think rationally/logically.

I obviously have a little more faith than you, but what amazes me is where you find the faith it requires to let just about anyone have guns in their possession.

Your generosity in allowing people to go "target shooting and hunting" is noted. You are such a magnanimous individual to grant people such freedoms.

(sarcasm intended)

Sarcasm noted. I do admit spite has made it easy to support the gun registry on the surface but deep down and more seriously, I've always favoured gun control.

While you may think its acceptable to grant those freedoms only, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Individuals who may want to collect guns (as a hobby) will think otherwise. (Not to mention the fact that any hunters will probably find the idea of having to go to a central armory very inconvenient, depending on when/where they hunt.)

Imagine how inconvenient it will be to go postal or domestic, as the case may be, with a gun.

So, what if I said "You can't store your cars at home.... but you can store your private car at a central government lot... You can still go for Sunday drives though." Would you find that acceptable?

Are you kidding? It's 2010, I'm amazed we don't have an automated system whereby we order up a car when we need to go somewhere and when we're finished with it it takes off to the next passenger who needs it.

Actually, there is no double standard.

Oh I'm pretty sure there's one somewhere. How about helicopters? You think anyone who felt like it could just use their back yard or roof as a landing and take-off pad?

[Argus]

Not quite. I suggested the idea of ever increasing jail times for crimes committed with firearms has failed, on its own, to significantly stem crimes committed with firearms. Despite having hefty sentences for just about every crime imaginable, including those involving guns, the US, with prevalent gun ownership, still has the highest rate of homicides in the developed world, 75% of which are committed using guns.

I mentioned the situation in Australia, which has a lower rate than Canada of homicides using guns, and my experiences there, but it was ignored.

The United States has the world's 24th worst murder rate per capita. Ever wonder why those other 23 are worse? I mean, the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else. Shouldn't their homicide rate be the highest? Why is Poland's rate higher? Why is it higher in Latvia? Do you think maybe there are other things besides the availability of firearms at work?

As for Australia. Australia and Canada have virtually identical homicide rates. I don't particularly care what methodology is used in the commission of those homicides. I'm not sure why you do.

Now as to your suggestion. The U.S. does indeed have generally higher incarceration rates and higher sentences. Unfortunately, they also have a judicial system which is complex, under-funded and filled with deal-making. It's not unusual for murderers to serve less than two or three years before being released. And I'm not aware of any big clampdown on homicides or violence which include firearms use. If you rob a store with a gun or a knife you get, as far as I'm aware, basically the same sentence. And given gun ownership is considered a right there are few serious laws against buying, selling, owning or transporting them.

So essentially your believe that adding 20 years to the sentence of someone who uses a firearm in the commission of a violent crime would be of little value is based on zero evidence.

[g_bambino]

Do you think maybe there are other things besides the availability of firearms at work?

Of course. My consideration of other factors was indicated by my specific inclusion and placement of the words "on its own" in my last post.

[Oleg Bach]

Candice Hoeppner worked Evan Soloman over pretty good on the CBC show today - he was scrambling all over the place. He was trying to dredge up some side issues and she was direct and factual with each one - demonstrating how one-sided his portrayals were. It was amusing. But in the end, he asked if her motion was defeated - would the Conservatives work with the other parties to come up with a comprimise. She said Conservatives don't believe in the registry - period.....BUT if the other parties wanted to talk about strengthening the LICENSING for long gun owners - who should be allowed to own one and what their responsibilities would be - then the Conservatives would be more than willing to talk at length.

No person raised in an urban invironment - raised in the projects who is black should ever have a gun...nor should urban white trash idots...These twits who's whole culture is gleened from television - beleive that all guns are for killing people and showing the world how powerful you are - these idiots also had abusive fathers who trained them that respect was to instill fear...all idiots should not be allowed to have guns.....NONE of them! Polical correctness dictates that ALL people should be weaponless....It is the intelligent and good people who need to be armed if neccesary because the barbaric monkeys out there are a possible threat..IQ tests should be drawn up...stupid - gets a bowl of cherries and smart gets a gun.

[Topaz]

They already are, another example of how people have no idea what is going on ,but act if they do. If you want to buy ammo, you need a PAL,then your name and PAL number , address, what you bought ,how much you bought, what day you bought it and waht time you bought it, IS ALL RECORDED. What makes me sad is seeing the family of the poor girls killed begging for the registry, these poor people have been sold a bill of goods that does nothing and they are being used to push it thru, I am sorry for your loss, but you are making a fool out of yourselves for something that does not do a damn thing, and I do not like the idea I have to suffer for it.When you have NDP'ers saying they changed their minds because of how the cons went about trying to kill it, nothing to do with guns or safety of the people ,but pure politics.This has gotten out of hand.

You are right, it is out of hand and the PM will use this to his advantage by asking gun owners to support him in the next election. Problem for Harper is, if these owners already support him, he still won't get a majority.

[PIK]

You are right, it is out of hand and the PM will use this to his advantage by asking gun owners to support him in the next election. Problem for Harper is, if these owners already support him, he still won't get a majority.

There are non gun owners that are against this liberal big brother policy, and that is all it is ,is to let the liberals have a peek inside your home.

Now that 6.5 million sun readers have been insulted by the liberal elite, will help. Danny willians needs harper now, so that will help, he will do better in the north,and once a election comes and iggy is asked if he will form a coalition if harper has another minority, he will have to tell the truth and say yes or lie, he is cooked either way. Canadians don't care about elections till a election, and then they will get a real good look at iggy and alot will hold thier nose and vote harper.

[capricorn]

Now I wonder how honest those rural NDP MPs will be when confronting their constituents. Do you suppose they'll openly admit that the party put pressure on them to change their votes so they didn't risk losing votes in Toronto and Vancouver? That the urban votes is more important to the Birkenstock wearing wine and cheese set which runs the NDP than a bunch of hick farmers?

The way things are going, I think the NDP's polling numbers will plummet to around 10% nationally. With this whipped vote, the NDP is abandoning its philosophy of populism which is to represent Canadians in all regions. No doubt this breach of a basic tenet of what the NDP stands for will affect the NDP vote in rural Canada and perhaps even in urban centres. Time will tell whether I'm reading the tea leaves correctly.

[waldo]

Now I wonder how honest those rural NDP MPs will be when confronting their constituents. Do you suppose they'll openly admit that the party put pressure on them to change their votes so they didn't risk losing votes in Toronto and Vancouver? That the urban votes is more important to the Birkenstock wearing wine and cheese set which runs the NDP than a bunch of hick farmers?

The way things are going, I think the NDP's polling numbers will plummet to around 10% nationally. With this whipped vote, the NDP is abandoning its philosophy of populism which is to represent Canadians in all regions. No doubt this breach of a basic tenet of what the NDP stands for will affect the NDP vote in rural Canada and perhaps even in urban centres. Time will tell whether I'm reading the tea leaves correctly.

ya, ya... like all that honesty surrounding this fake Harper Conservative "private members bill"... like Harper hasn't had his Conservative MPs votes whipped... like there's not a single Conservative (urban) MP in Canada that doesn't support the gun registry. Is that the kind of honesty you partisan hacks speak of?

and just what's with ole Rusty getting pissy with the 'elite' jabs - hey? Baird slams 'Toronto elites' over gun registry ... I mean, c'mon... it was telling enough when Rusty told Toronto residents to phack-off.

[Wild Bill]

ya, ya... like all that honesty surrounding this fake Harper Conservative "private members bill"... like Harper hasn't had his Conservative MPs votes whipped... like there's not a single Conservative (urban) MP in Canada that doesn't support the gun registry. Is that the kind of honesty you partisan hacks speak of?

Waldo, outside of urban prairie cities, ARE THERE ANY Conservative urban MPs?

[bloodyminded]

Waldo, outside of urban prairie cities, ARE THERE ANY Conservative urban MPs?

And if not...why not?

[Molly]

Waldo, outside of urban prairie cities, ARE THERE ANY Conservative urban MPs?

Yes.

(Good grief.)

[Keepitsimple]

I'll go out on a limb and say that at least a couple of Liberals will stay away from the vote....they will do so at the request of the still-alive-and-kicking backroom boys - and they will do so to embarrass Mr. Ignatieff and continue the fratricide that still plagues the Liberals. We'll soon see though.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Now I wonder how honest those rural NDP MPs will be when confronting their constituents. Do you suppose they'll openly admit that the party put pressure on them to change their votes so they didn't risk losing votes in Toronto and Vancouver? That the urban votes is more important to the Birkenstock wearing wine and cheese set which runs the NDP than a bunch of hick farmers?

The way things are going, I think the NDP's polling numbers will plummet to around 10% nationally. With this whipped vote, the NDP is abandoning its philosophy of populism which is to represent Canadians in all regions. No doubt this breach of a basic tenet of what the NDP stands for will affect the NDP vote in rural Canada and perhaps even in urban centres. Time will tell whether I'm reading the tea leaves correctly.

ya, ya... like all that honesty surrounding this fake Harper Conservative "private members bill"... like Harper hasn't had his Conservative MPs votes whipped... like there's not a single Conservative (urban) MP in Canada that doesn't support the gun registry. Is that the kind of honesty you partisan hacks speak of?

and just what's with ole Rusty getting pissy with the 'elite' jabs - hey? Baird slams 'Toronto elites' over gun registry ... I mean, c'mon... it was telling enough when Rusty told Toronto residents to phack-off.

Waldo, outside of urban prairie cities, ARE THERE ANY Conservative urban MPs?

yabut Wild Bill... the legwork on that oft proffered Conservative talking point has been done now, many times over. You can dispute it and offer your own definition/criteria for "urban", but by the latest run-ups on vote tallying for the gun-registry, 30 Conservative MPs represent so-called urban enclaves... Alice Wong - Richmond, James Moore - Port Coquitlam, Andrew Saxton - North Vancouver, Peter Kent - Thornhill, Rusty Baird - Ottawa, Pierre Poilievre - Ottawa, Keith Ashfield - Fredericton.........

like I said, a fake Harper Conservative "private members bill", whipped to a frenzy to ensure every (urban) Conservative MP votes against the gun registry.

[Wild Bill]

yabut Wild Bill... the legwork on that oft proffered Conservative talking point has been done now, many times over. You can dispute it and offer your own definition/criteria for "urban", but by the latest run-ups on vote tallying for the gun-registry, 30 Conservative MPs represent so-called urban enclaves... Alice Wong - Richmond, James Moore - Port Coquitlam, Andrew Saxton - North Vancouver, Peter Kent - Thornhill, Rusty Baird - Ottawa, Pierre Poilievre - Ottawa, Keith Ashfield - Fredericton.........

like I said, a fake Harper Conservative "private members bill", whipped to a frenzy to ensure every (urban) Conservative MP votes against the gun registry.

Well, not many from Toronto on that list. When I think of "urban elite" that's always the city that comes to my mind.

I'm not sure where I fit into the definition. I grew up in a rural area but when I became an adult I moved into the city and have been there ever since.

As for the Liberal gun registry, I never had any respect for it from the start. As a Libertarian it offended my sense of civic freedoms, i.e. everyone should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. If they do, that's why we have courts and if necessary, gallows! In other words, punish people for negative behavior, not for their possessions.

Also, as a "Utilitarian" it seemed obvious that the Liberal gun registry would also do nothing to stop criminals from illegal possession and use of guns. It never even added a day to the mandatory sentence for using a gun in the commission of a crime! It was simply a vote grab from a hysterical (and mostly Quebecois) demographic from people who are happy if they see someone buzzing around and blowing a lot of smoke but never actually exert their brain to see if a program actually DOES something! Thus it always was and will be in Canadian politics.

It does seem to me that rural people tend to be more practical than Toronto folks. John Boy learned at an early age on the farm that if you didn't get the seeds planted in time you wouldn't eat for the rest of the year! Toronto folks seem to think that if there's a shortage of bread all we have to do is open more variety stores.

I think the most basic divide between left and right thinkers, at least in Canadian society today, is that when the right has a goal or perceives a need they immediately start thinking in terms of what specific things or actions are necessary to achieve that goal. In other words, if we need more electricity what kind of generators do we need to build and how large must they be? What about the transmission lines?

When the left wants something they always seem to take the HOW for granted! They talk in terms of political power and force. That's why so many of their goals always end up as a "clusterf**k", like housing projects that become slums before they are ever opened and retraining programs for skills that no one wants to hire.

It's always "symbolism over substance". The left will get a city to implement a recycling program where it is mandatory for individual citizens to pre-sort their paper, plastics and metals. Then after collection the materials are often just mixed together and dumped en masse into the landfill! The goal is to foster a sense of public participation. Actually DOING the recycling is almost an afterthought!

The Liberal gun registry seemed to me to fall into this category. The idea of gun control is really an entirely separate issue, since this particular registry did nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. Worse yet, when you examine it closely it never appeared to have been designed to do such anyway!

Edited September 19, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Keepitsimple]

Well, not many from Toronto on that list. When I think of "urban elite" that's always the city that comes to my mind.

It's always "symbolism over substance". The left will get a city to implement a recycling program where it is mandatory for individual citizens to pre-sort their paper, plastics and metals. Then after collection the materials are often just mixed together and dumped en masse into the landfill! The goal is to foster a sense of public participation. Actually DOING the recycling is almost an afterthought!

The Liberal gun registry seemed to me to fall into this category. The idea of gun control is really an entirely separate issue, since this particular registry did nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. Worse yet, when you examine it closely it never appeared to have been designed to do such anyway!

Oh for Heaven's Sake Bill...stop trying to speak rationally.

[Evening Star]

It's always "symbolism over substance". The left will get a city to implement a recycling program where it is mandatory for individual citizens to pre-sort their paper, plastics and metals. Then after collection the materials are often just mixed together and dumped en masse into the landfill! The goal is to foster a sense of public participation. Actually DOING the recycling is almost an afterthought!

Um, what is this actually based on?

I don't have a strong position on the registry but I'm curious why you think police groups have been lining up in favour of it if it is in fact ineffective at preventing crime or at least making it easier to track criminals and weapons.

[Smallc]

Oh for Heaven's Sake Bill...stop trying to speak rationally.

If he's trying to speak rationally, he isn't trying nearly hard enough.