gun ban

[scribblet]

Isn't Layton a bit out to lunch on this one:

Jack Layton

Implement a ban on sale and import of all assault and automatic rifles

Isn't that allready the law?

[FTA Lawyer]

Isn't Layton a bit out to lunch on this one:

  Jack Layton

Implement a ban on sale and import of all assault and automatic rifles

Isn't that allready the law?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup...

Unless you are a member of the Canadian military you can't legally possess an operating automatic or "assault" rifle in this country.

And even then, you can't own it, or take it home with you, you can just possess it on a CFB or where otherwise authorized for military purposes.

Now the question of what an "assault" rifle actually is brings a little bit of grey area into things, but not really, because there is an extensive list of "prohibited" and "restricted" weapons. Most people cannot obtain legal authority to possess a gun that fits within either category.

FTA

[hiti]

This announcement of banning all handguns has put the bell on the NRA who were in Toronto last weekend at the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, interfering in our federal election and making speeches on political organization tips during an election. The NRA and their U.S. style, big-money gun lobby efforts are not welcome here.

The NRA not only want to sell their guns to Canadian criminals but they want to impose their values of a gun in every home on Canada. Conservatives need to think long and hard about their hard-line position on relaxing gun laws in Canada.

[sharkman]

I don't believe the Conservatives want to relax gun laws, they feel that spending 2 billion dollars on the gun registry isn't working since people in Toronto and elsewhere are still being shot.

From what I've heard they just want to toughen up the sentences for criminals since our justice system seems unable to provide a deterent.

I agree with you on the NRA sticking their noses into Canada, we are not gun happy like them.

[hiti]

It will not matter how tough the sentences are. Criminals will still commit the crime.

In the U.S. they frequently give murderers the death penalty and still murders are committed with no regard for the consequences.

Japan has a ban on guns and low murder numbers. In Japan only .02 of their homicides are with guns whereas in the U.S. it is 3.72

[daniel]

We might expect some dual citizens in Canada challenging the ban, stating it is an infringement against their constitutional right. So dual dual-citizens may have immunity whereas non-American Canadians won't have that right.

[FTA Lawyer]

Conservatives need to think long and hard about their hard-line position on relaxing gun laws in Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scrapping the gun registry will in no way whatsoever act to "relax" gun laws in Canada, and there is no such suggestion in the Conservative platform.

Before the implementation of the registry, Canada already had some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world...which by and large had been in place since the late 1970's with the introduction of the FAC (firarms acquisition certificate) to license gun owners.

I don't have the date of the implementation of the hand-gun registry, but it was in place for decades prior to the long-gun registry also.

A ban on hand guns in response to recent gun violence in Toronto is like banning automobiles after a bad stretch of impaired driving cases. The idiot driving drunk is already disobeying the law...as is the thug shooting at people in the inner city.

What possibly can be achieved by writing on a new piece of paper that re-confirms that it is unlawful to shoot at someone? Lawfully owned handguns are not a problem. Lawfully owned rifles and shotguns are not a problem.

I'd like to see a stat where someone looks at every single gun-related crime and asks the offender whether they were in lawful possession of the gun the moment before they committed the crime...I can already tell you the answer will be no virtually 100% of the time.

I've handled cases where guns have been involved in crime where charges were not even laid under the Firearms Act...so don't put all the blame on Defence lawyers Argus. The reality is that no matter what we try to offer as plea bargains, it is the Crown Prosecutor who decides to accept or reject a proposal.

My point overall on this issue is that Martin et. al. could have used the entire budget of the long-gun registry and whatever money they propose to blow on a futile ban of handguns to employ people to find and destroy illegal guns that are in the country...and to stop the import of more.

FTA

[sharkman]

It will not matter how tough the sentences are. Criminals will still commit the crime.

In the U.S. they frequently give murderers the death penalty and still murders are committed with no regard for the consequences.

The point is they won't be shooting as many people since they would be in prison, whereas the Liberal plan would have no effect on sentences, and Joe criminal would be back on the streets to simply procure another banned handgun.

Japan has a ban on guns and low murder numbers. In Japan only .02 of their homicides are with guns whereas in the U.S. it is 3.72

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good thought, except that Japan's culture is night and day different than Canada. They are not as violent, just as we are not as violent as the U.S. Again, the gun registry has not stopped people who want to shoot each other. Handguns have already been restricted in Canada with no effect since the judges won't punish offenders. Another gun law won't do anything, keeping the twits in prison will keep them from shooting someone.

[Argus]

It will not matter how tough the sentences are. Criminals will still commit the crime.

In the U.S. they frequently give murderers the death penalty and still murders are committed with no regard for the consequences.

Japan has a ban on guns and low murder numbers. In Japan only .02 of their homicides are with guns whereas in the U.S. it is 3.72

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither nation can be compared to Canada. In most of the US, the crime rate is actually similar to ours, if you're white. The big problem there are those giant inner city slums full of the underclass, angry, sullen, surrounded by drugs and violence, without hope. Nothing will stop crime in the US until they are addressed.

In Japan, you have a culture of respect and obedience. For example, pornography is everywhere, and violent pornography of the most amazingly perverted sort is widely available and read by massive numbers of people. But rape is almost unheard of.

In any event, Japan is an island. We are not. We have a multi thousand K border with the US and almost nothing to watch it with.

[Argus]

I've handled cases where guns have been involved in crime where charges were not even laid under the Firearms Act...so don't put all the blame on Defence lawyers Argus.  The reality is that no matter what we try to offer as plea bargains, it is the Crown Prosecutor who decides to accept or reject a proposal.

My point overall on this issue is that Martin et. al. could have used the entire budget of the long-gun registry and whatever money they propose to blow on a futile ban of handguns to employ people to find and destroy illegal guns that are in the country...and to stop the import of more.

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't, in this case, blaming defence lawyers. They do ask, but it is the Crown which agrees. And as you say, The Crown often doesn't bother, and then we have judges who are slack and thoughtless when it comes to violence and guns, and refuse to issue severe punishments, and prisons where parole is just about automatic, no matter how dangerous you are.

And I've been suggesting for some time that the gun registry money would be far better spent fighting smuggling and the illegal sale and purchase of firearms.

[southerncomfort]

Yup, a handgun makes perfect sense. After all, all the gun crime in Toronto is committed by legally registered handguns, right?

Back in the dark ages; pre Trudeau and Marc LaLonde that is; we had a section in the Criminal Code that effectively dealt with hand guns and for that matter any crime where an offensive weapon was used. It made it mandatory for the courts to sentence a person to strokes of the paddle along with any other sentence imposed for any crime where an offensive weapon was used. There was also provisions to cover the assault on a prison guard by inmates. In the latter case the warden was a Judge of the Magistrate's court by his appointment and he was able to sentence inmates for infractions of the rules; including eliminating time off for good behavious or whatever it is called now (mandatory parole or whatever). When we did away with capital punishment the overnment of the day; Yeah the Liberals; quietly included corporal punishment into the same package. Up until Trudeau's glorious mind boggling amendments to good law; violent offenses involving in particular hand guns were very uncommon.

Hand guns were not out there as much; lots of people owned them and used them on ranges etc. But hardly ever were they used to commit any offenses. Why you ask; people knew damn well what was in store for them if they were caught. About the only time you heard of weapons like hand guns being used were during bank robberies; never ever a corner grocery store etc. There had to be big bucks involved before anyone would take the risk. Even a robber with a knife was dealt with by strokes of the paddle.

Most people in the current generation are unaware that corporal punishment was used effectively in that era. They are now running out of options; the slap on the wrist and wisdom talking isn't working as well as it was spelled out by all the 'social progressives'. Someone will ultimately have to have the guts to re-instate corporal punishment for 'robbery with violence' as it was termed back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth; then maybe we can bring this back under control.

Yup, I suppose someone will come up and tell us that that it is "cruel and unusual punishment". It would be interesting to hear what those people who are directly affected by drive by shootings and gang killings have to say.

[stewgots]

The article is bang on.  Someone who goes through the hoops of getting a handgun license is not going to be using it to commit an offense.  I would imagine most guns used in murders are neither registered, nor legally acquired (read: stolen, smuggled, etc.).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, the intelligence and logic Martin demonstrates with this move is astounding...

People who are breaking about 14 different laws by using a handgun to commit murders will be stopped with ease...by simply making it MORE illegal for them to do such acts.

This is the same fundamental flaw of the long-gun registry...law abiding gun owners are not the ones committing the crimes...and those who are have already mastered the challenge of getting a hold of a gun illegally.

The saddest part is that many big-city voters will blindly fall for this idiocy.

I hate to be harsh, but James Rosko demonstrated with horrific clarity that you cannot prevent gun tragedy with firearms bans (i.e. Rosko was banned from possessing any firearm by provisions of the Criminal Code at the time he slaughtered four Mounties with a firearm...the ban didn't work so well did it?)

It's political exploitation of the grief of a community at its finest (worst) for Martin to make this kind of announcement which any reasonable person can see has no hope at all of helping the problem.

I guess we can hope that the leak of this announcement was a trial balloon and he won't actually go through with it once he gets some feedback...wishful thinking?

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[stewgots]

The article is bang on.  Someone who goes through the hoops of getting a handgun license is not going to be using it to commit an offense.  I would imagine most guns used in murders are neither registered, nor legally acquired (read: stolen, smuggled, etc.).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, the intelligence and logic Martin demonstrates with this move is astounding...

People who are breaking about 14 different laws by using a handgun to commit murders will be stopped with ease...by simply making it MORE illegal for them to do such acts.

This is the same fundamental flaw of the long-gun registry...law abiding gun owners are not the ones committing the crimes...and those who are have already mastered the challenge of getting a hold of a gun illegally.

The saddest part is that many big-city voters will blindly fall for this idiocy.

I hate to be harsh, but James Rosko demonstrated with horrific clarity that you cannot prevent gun tragedy with firearms bans (i.e. Rosko was banned from possessing any firearm by provisions of the Criminal Code at the time he slaughtered four Mounties with a firearm...the ban didn't work so well did it?)

It's political exploitation of the grief of a community at its finest (worst) for Martin to make this kind of announcement which any reasonable person can see has no hope at all of helping the problem.

I guess we can hope that the leak of this announcement was a trial balloon and he won't actually go through with it once he gets some feedback...wishful thinking?

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[stewgots]

Yup, a handgun makes perfect sense. After all, all the gun crime in Toronto is committed by legally registered handguns, right?

Back in the dark ages; pre Trudeau and Marc LaLonde that is; we had a section in the Criminal Code that effectively dealt with hand guns and for that matter any crime where an offensive weapon was used. It made it mandatory for the courts to sentence a person to strokes of the paddle along with any other sentence imposed for any crime where an offensive weapon was used. There was also provisions to cover the assault on a prison guard by inmates. In the latter case the warden was a Judge of the Magistrate's court by his appointment and he was able to sentence inmates for infractions of the rules; including eliminating time off for good behavious or whatever it is called now (mandatory parole or whatever). When we did away with capital punishment the  overnment of the day; Yeah the Liberals; quietly included corporal punishment into the same package. Up until Trudeau's glorious mind boggling amendments to good law; violent offenses involving in particular hand guns were very uncommon.

Hand guns were not out there as much; lots of people owned them and used them on ranges etc. But hardly ever were they used to commit any offenses. Why you ask; people knew damn well what was in store for them if they were caught. About the only time you heard of weapons like hand guns being used were during bank robberies; never ever a corner grocery store etc. There had to be big bucks involved before anyone would take the risk. Even a robber with a knife was dealt with by strokes of the paddle.

Most people in the current generation are unaware that corporal punishment was used effectively in that era. They are now running out of options; the slap on the wrist and wisdom talking isn't working as well as it was spelled out by all the 'social progressives'. Someone will ultimately have to have the guts to re-instate corporal punishment for 'robbery with violence' as it was termed back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth; then maybe we can bring this back under control.

Yup, I suppose someone will come up and tell us that that it is "cruel and unusual punishment". It would be interesting to hear what those people who are directly affected by drive by shootings and gang killings have to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[lovecanada]

Well, by reading all your replies to this topic, it seems like Martins announcement was a big hit

If the Liberals get back in they have just made 100's of law abiding people criminals. I heard him say that anyone not giving up their guns would have them take away by force if necessary.

[normanchateau]

  Martin, what a schmuck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not just stick with the issue rather than resorting to name-calling?

[Argus]

Interesting to see press reaction from the same network in different parts of the country. Last night, CTV (Toronto) announced PMPM's "sweeping and dramatic new policy" with great fanfare. If the Liberal Party's best spinmasters had written the anchor's material they couldn't have hoped for better. The anchorman was obviously quite impressed, and the story, covered in detail (well, leaving aside a very few seconds unflattering raction from Harper and Layton) was played up as the end of gun violence in Canada, with almost everyone interviewed saying it was a great idea.

This morning, same network, but from BC we got a vide of the Vancouver police chief saying that the policy was useless, the reporter pointing out 90% of handguns seized by police came across the border from Washington, pointing to last election's red book which said the Libs would be cracking down on gun smuggling across the border, not banning handguns, and saying the policy was nothing more than politics playing up to Toronto. Then we had Dosanj and a half dozen other local MPs in BC crowding together on a stage to make the announcement out there. But no fanare. The reporter challenged Dosanj on why it had taken so long to announce anything to deal with gun violence, and why he'd never asked for such a ban as BC attorney general.

When another BC Lib MP came to Dosanj's aid on stage to say he'd only been with the Federal party for seventeen months the reporter confronted her. When had she first been elected? Nineteen ninety three? Okay, so how come you've never called for a handgun ban, how come it's taken so long for the Liberals to do anything about smuggling across the border.

I love it when reporters challenge politicians or bureacrats who make empty, stupid statements that make no sense. It happens far, far too seldom in this country. Instead what we usually get is wide-eyed acceptance of everything they say, at least in front of the camera.

[scribblet]

I think most people recognize this for what it is, a political stunt. According to their announcement, the National Handgun Ban will cost $30 million over five years..., so if we convert this using Liberal math as shown by the gun registry, the actual cost will be $15 BILLION!!..., and, oh by the way, not a single urban gangster wannabe is going to turn in his Glok or nickel plated Colt.45 pimp wand and more innocent bystanders will die. But, as long as this little stunt gets the liberal vote - thats okay.

[normanchateau]

I think most people recognize this for what it is, a political stunt. According to their announcement, the National Handgun Ban will cost $30 million over five years..., so if we convert this using Liberal math as shown by the gun registry, the actual cost will be $15 BILLION!!..., and, oh by the way, not a single urban gangster wannabe is going to turn in his Glok or nickel plated Colt.45 pimp wand and more innocent bystanders will die.  But, as long as this little stunt gets the liberal vote - thats okay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup, CPC supporters see this as a Liberal strunt just as the rest of Canada sees Harper's announcement in BC last week that he'd jail young people for simple possession of marijuana as a stunt to get the CPC vote. I wonder which stunt will be more effective? Hmmmm....

[tweedledee]

I think most people recognize this for what it is, a political stunt. According to their announcement, the National Handgun Ban will cost $30 million over five years..., so if we convert this using Liberal math as shown by the gun registry, the actual cost will be $15 BILLION!!..., and, oh by the way, not a single urban gangster wannabe is going to turn in his Glok or nickel plated Colt.45 pimp wand and more innocent bystanders will die.  But, as long as this little stunt gets the liberal vote - thats okay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure is since and its not an announcement like be says, its a campaign promise, they are still pretending they are the government. You can't make an illegal gun illegaller (okay not a word).,

Anyway, its a trap for Harper, just a trick to make the tories look like 'right wing gun lovers' most people will see throught that one.

Like rebanning illeal weapons will suddenly bring peace and goodwill among ganstas. Duck people its a TRAP.

[sharkman]

Like what was said on another thread, hey, why don't they just ban murder! It'll have about as much effect. Or ban cars, since they kill so many more people than guns. But when votes are up for grabs, things like logic and cost go out the window.

[Shakeyhands]

You know I think they've made enough provisions that should satisfy gun owners on this one...

bunch of whiners anyway, register your damn guns already!

[sharkman]

Yah, like the criminals are going to register anything, keep dreaming! I heard someone say on TV, if they outlaw handguns the only people who will have them will be outlaws.

[Argus]

I think most people recognize this for what it is, a political stunt. According to their announcement, the National Handgun Ban will cost $30 million over five years..., so if we convert this using Liberal math as shown by the gun registry, the actual cost will be $15 BILLION!!..., and, oh by the way, not a single urban gangster wannabe is going to turn in his Glok or nickel plated Colt.45 pimp wand and more innocent bystanders will die.  But, as long as this little stunt gets the liberal vote - thats okay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure is since and its not an announcement like be says, its a campaign promise, they are still pretending they are the government. You can't make an illegal gun illegaller (okay not a word).,

Oh, no, this has nothing to do with politics. Martin said so! Can you believe the utter gall of the man!? To have the audacity to say this new policy shift has nothing to do with politics! The man literally has no shame.

[Guest eureka]

American cities that have banned handguns have experienced dramatic drops in the rate of usage in crimes. Chicago dropped by almost a third in murders immediately following the ban.

Of course, the gun lovers claim it was the tighter policing that was responsible.