Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

No need for handguns

The position taken by the Conservatives that they will not ban handguns in the wake of another innocent kid being gunned down in a crossfire in Toronto a few days ago isn’t surprising. From their attempts to kill the long gun registry, to stacking the firearms advisory committee with gun enthusiasts, it’s very evident that the gun lobby has its best friends in government at the moment.

That being said, I am of the opinion that once the Conservatives are ousted from power, handguns of all types should indeed be banned. I see absolutely no reason for ordinary Canadians to have to own a handgun any more then not seeing the reason for them owning an assault rifle. If someone counters that farmers and such need something to shoot pests, a rifle or shotgun is of a better use to them in that regard. My relatives who are farmers all own rifles for that express purpose; none of them have ever expressed a desire to get a handgun to defend the farm from varmints. Handguns should be limited to the military and the police.

To those who say handgun problems are mostly caused by smuggling and the ban wouldn’t help, that’s not quite true. To be sure, it’s a problem, but when you consider 2000 – 3000 guns are apparently stolen each year from those who own them legally, that’s a problem that needs to be addressed. The solution is simple; ban them. Removing the supply of legal arms will then allow Canada’s police and border guards to focus more on the guns being smuggled in illegally across the border.

The Tories are obviously not up to the task – they are in the gun lobby’s holster, as Atty-General of Ontario Michael Bryant says. This should be made a key election issue when that election finally rolls around. There will be far more people in Canada supportive of a total gun ban then against, I deem.

UPDATE @ 12:33PM: The Toronto Star editorial today also calls for a total ban on handguns (on an irreverent note, nice to see I’m not the only one who still uses the term “varmints”. I don’t feel as much of a country hick now ๐Ÿ˜‰ )

….about 400,000 Canadians own handguns. These gun owners are inadvertently helping to outfit a criminal army of the streets, which obtains many of its firearms by theft. About 97,000 firearms have been stolen or reported missing in Canada over the past 30 years..the most pressing need in this struggle to control violence is a nationwide bad on handguns. Such a ban should be enacted without delay and with few exceptions to the rule. Police officers and the military obviously should still be allowed to carry pistols. And there may be room for a narrow exemption for elite competitive shooters. Everyone else should have to surrender their weapons under a federal buyback program.

144 comments to No need for handguns

  • I have to disagree with Scott, also. I am an owner of handguns (yes, multiple). I also have a rifle and a shotgun. I use the handguns for sport shooting, a legal reason as to why.

    I am also an armed guard working for G4S Cash Services. I will not do this job if they ban handguns and I promise you that the companies would go bankrupt in our country. Just look at G4S in England, we hear of weekly robberies there. Why? They’re not armed. Here it’s been almost 7 years since we (in Edmonton) have been hit, elsewhere in the country, maybe once or twice a year. That includes Brinks and Garda, etc. It is almost non-existant.

    Why is it that the government feels that the armed guard’s contents are more important than my wife or children? The money can be replaced, my family cannot. Where is the logistics in that?

    I enjoy sport shooting. I don’t care that it’s only a piece of paper that I’m shooting, it’s the skill that I’m developing. It relieves stress to go to a range and shoot off a few hundred rounds. It’s not an easy task to hit a target at 25 yards with a handgun, but it’s fun, nevertheless. Why is my innocent enjoyment of a sport criminal?

    Given the chance, I would indeed carry for protection during my daily life. If I carry to protect cash, why wouldn’t I for the life of my family? Surveys in the USA estimate that guns are used defensively from 2 to 3 million times a year. The only incidents you hear of, though, are ones where someone was shot and killed. It is very rare to hear of a defensive gun use where the gun is brandished and the criminal leaves, or where a criminal is wounded and lives, but the crime is stopped. Yet it happens more frequently then you’d think. I’ve collected a few good examples on my website at: http://www.tbeckett.net/articles/2008/08/10/defensive-guns.xhtml . I’ll be collecting more over time through other articles.

    A 5’4″, 110 lb woman, without a gun, stands little chance of defense against a 6’0″ 200 lb male who is intent on murdering or raping her. Sure, she can call the cops, but, by the time they arrive, she will likely be raped and/or dead and the criminal will be gone. That same woman with a gun could deter the crime from happening simply by brandishing the gun and calling the cops with a description. The male doesn’t stand a chance against the gun, and will likely run for his life (as he should).

    For the record, I am very much in support of Libertarian ideals and am part of the Libertarian Party of Canada. I do believe that gangs would lose their grip on society if we decriminalized drugs and guns. They would have nothing to hold over people, addicts could get their wares at a pharmacy or other store and not have to rely on their drug dealer with sky high prices to get their hit (which they’re going to get in any case). If they are not paying sky high prices, they can afford it with a job, instead of by stealing and mugging others. It is no different than the Prohibition from 1900 to 1930 in various areas of Canada.

    There is much evidence which supports CCW and relaxation of gun control laws. Many, many articles have been written by Dr John R Lott, who gets labeled as a “gun nut” though he didn’t even own a gun until his researched showed him the advantages to owning one. Read his books, “The Bias Against Guns”, “Straight Shooting”, and “More Guns, Less Crime”. I realize that you probably won’t, most of the gun control advocates refuse to have an open mind and read articles which contradict their views.

    Before you blame me for the same thing, I have read more than one article for gun control and found it to be based on feelings or “selective” statistics instead of using all the statistics available. Either that or they either out-and-out lie to the reader or stretch the truth. Take the following example from the Coalition for Gun Control’s site:

    Quote: “Law enforcement officers have queried the Canadian Firearms Registry On-line over 8.4 million times since it was launched on December 1, 1998. In 2008, it is used in average 8,603 times each day”

    Truth: The “8,603 hits” figure (which previously said 6,500, and 5,000 prior to that and 2,000 prior to that) for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading. Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Therefore, the large number of hits is by design, a charade to make it seem it is working.

    Now, what if we repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act? What could you do with $2,000,000,000? How about hire 26,667 more law enforcement officers (rounded up, assuming $75,000 salary)? That makes more sense than the “feel-good” actions our government is taking today. That would do more for our society than to punish our law abiding citizens. That would make me feel safer.

    Believe what you want, but I find far more facts in favour of relaxed gun control than I do for the reverse. Criminals will have guns, whether they’re banned or not. Therefore, banning them from the law abiding citizen is not only not going to make a difference, but is counter productive.

  • george

    [quote comment=""]Scott, I have to say that I disagree with you.  Guns are nothing more than a tool, no different than a cordless drill, chainsaw, or cattle-prod. Let us not forget that cars are also tools, that we both use everyday, remember that "cars" kill more people each year than "handguns", get behind the wheel after having several stiff ones on friday afternoon, and the "car"becomes a lethal weapon. How? The car hasn’t done anything, it is the operator who is in charge, just as the handgun hasn’t done anything. To take legal ownership of handguns away from responsible Canadians, would only enpower the criminals that much more. [/quote]

  • george

    Scott, I have to say that I disagree with you.  Guns are nothing more than a tool, no different than a cordless drill, chainsaw, or cattle-prod. Let us not forget that cars are also tools, that we both use everyday, remember that "cars" kill more people each year than "handguns", get behind the wheel after having several stiff ones on friday afternoon, and the "car"becomes a lethal weapon. How? The car hasn’t done anything, it is the operator who is in charge, just as the handgun hasn’t done anything. To take legal ownership of handguns away from responsible Canadians, would only enpower the criminals that much more. 

  • Johnny Lee

    Scott,
     I am a Canadian living in Texas. I would love it if Canada would allow Canadians with no police record to carry a hand gun when ever they felt the need. I might move back to Canada then. Myself and my wife would feel safe than. Only the bad guys have hand guns on the street now. Mabey if your wife or daughter got raped at gun piont, you might feel differently. Guns are here to stay, honest law respecting Canadians need to right to carry hand guns.  Regards, Johnny…

  • Dennis Venturi

    Wow! pit bulls, racism, frothy bodies. Guns are pretty complicated things ain’t they?  If I take anti gun people at their word, this issue is supposed to be respect for human life.  I would be likely to believe that this handgun ban wasn’t a punitive action against me, a firearm owner if the ban asked for was a ban on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  If you want me to believe that you really care about human life, go for the big three – ATF. Such a ban, assuming it works would help save 106 Canadian lives per day. (100/ day from tobacco, 4/day from alcohol, a 3/day from firearms) Success would guarantee sainthood. But I’m willing to bet that the deep desire to save lives will stop the second you become a criminal for having a beer or a cigarette. If that day comes, will you accept that you don’t really need a drink, or a smoke? Will you quietly give up tobacco and alcohol to show your commitment to human life?   

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    I may be 'there' on coca & opioids, &c., but North American society isn't…yet (even though these things were once common, OTC items). Ditto for 'Vermont-style' CCW (i.e., no permit required). Vermont, BTW, is a very progressive place, the first in North America to allow 'civil unions' between same-sex couples and a nice blend of redneck and hippie. (I'd move there, but I can't see the point of moving anywhere as cold as Calgary…) But I digress. WAY more people use pot than the 'hard' drugs and at least this would be a huge revenue loss for organized crime, like liquor was. Though pot isn't exactly healthy (the THC causes arrhythmias & it's full of tarry, carcinogenic gunk like tobacco smoke), it's no worse than alcohol & helps people with conditions like glaucoma & severe nausea from chemo. If people want to use it, it's really not the state's concern. The state security apparatus is better spent pursuing & neutralizing terrorists, rapists, card-skimmers & the like. And, as experience in some U.S. states has shown, allowing people to defend themselves with concealed carry laws has led to a drop in crimes like rape & muggings.

    Adam

  • Well, you're almost there, Adam. But why do you want to keep hard drugs illegal? Does it make sense to keep it expensive, especially considering where you figure the profits are going? The prohibitions aren't keeping a lot of folks from getting wired, y'know.

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    [quote]What we're doing right now doesn't work, and more of the same tactics will just make it worse.[/quote] I agree! Legalize pot (but not 'hard' drugs), just like with tobacco–you can grow up to 15kg, as long as you don't sell it (or give it to minors). People can either grow it for themselves, give it to their adult friends, or grow it for free, for medical aid societies (AIDS, etc.). That removes a HUGE revenue stream from gangs. Also, allow CCW, so civilians (again, not just those carrying cash for ATMs) to protect themselves. Libertarianism works both ways… Adam

  • The non gang-affiliated ones tend to get removed from the market quickly…and not by the cops.

    Wrong. There are plenty of independants. Trust me, I used to live on Vancouver Island. There's plenty of customers for everybody.

    I'm not saying gangs aren't involved, nor even involved big-time, but the reason its a money-maker to the degree that it is for the gangs and the independants is because of the prohibition. Get rid of that and you'll still have all the stoners you have anyways, but the cops'll be able to go after real violent criminals, and the thugs will lose a profit stream.

    What we're doing right now doesn't work, and more of the same tactics will just make it worse.

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    The non gang-affiliated ones tend to get removed from the market quickly…and not by the cops.

  • There AREN'T any 'non-gang' pot dealers

    Wrong.

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    Sorry to keep posting like mad here…

    About the 'ethnic bloc-voting' thing, here's a perspective from Tarek Fatah:
    http://tarek-fatah.blogspot.com/2006/12/december-6-2006-race-and-religion-at.html

    This is a serious issue. To his credit, NDP/Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanj has courageously stood up against these sort of 'community leaders,' though it cost him a trip to the hospital.

    One thing that was raised on this blog is the matter of buying recreational drugs. ALL such drugs–pot, ecstasy, what have you–are, in some way, connected to organized crime. Blood money. Until (or if) pot is legalized, your doobie dollars are buying weapons for gangsters. That the young, progressive, This Magazine-reading set doesn't see a contradiction in only buying Fair Trade coffee, sweatshop-free tee-shirts, but buying gangsta ganja boggles the mind. (There AREN'T any 'non-gang' pot dealers.) Failing to rat on gang members in one's midst is a moral failing, as well (note the popularity of 'kill rats DEAD' tee-shirts on gangbangers these days). Also–contrary to what some criminologists insist–a dead, deported, or incarcerated criminal has a zero recidivism rate. If Peter Whitmore wasn't let out of the can (or, better yet, shanked inside), he wouldn't've raped those boys. If Akiel Eubank and Gregory Sappleton were either put away forever (or deported) after shooting a FOUR YEAR OLD, Ephraim Brown would still be alive. I'm a member of the Conservative Party (surprise!); while I don't aagree with some of the party's MP's positions (I'm pro-gay marriage, for example), their stance on firearms, the armed forces and criminal Justice are what gets my vote. Did you know that there never was an ombudsman for victims of crime, but one for jailbirds, before the Harper government? The emasculated justice system, along with increasingly draconian gun laws, has followed this gang wave.

    Banning handguns will also cost Jobs in Ontario. Have you heard of Para-Ord?
    http://www.paraord.com/
    Also, please be mindful of the armed guards that deliver your cash and the various industry and scientific people who work in wilderness areas. Would YOU do what the do without a handgun?

    BTW, I don't want to be seen as Toronto-bashing. While I've never been there, it looks like a nice city: milder climate than calgary, bigger Tower and a real waterfront to sail from, rather than a piddly, landlocked reservoir…

    Cheers,
    Adam

  • Hey scott, I note that you are in London.  I would like to personally invite you out to my home club (eesa) so you can try out handguns yourself. 

    I am certain that once you have tried it out and LEARNED a bit about firarms and their use you will soon change many of your opinions.

    Come on what do you have to loose???

  • Adam:
     
    For what it's worth, I know Mike as a genuinely decent, intelligent and thoughtful guy and I can see why he responded as he did–I also have disagreements with you, but I do not regard you as racist after seeing your later, more detailed and clearer posts. And you get a full ten points for not returning fire over what I can see you viewed as a misunderstanding.

    Leaving overt crime aside for the moment…

    Ethnic block voting, political catering and influence peddling certainly exists. But block voting, political pandering and influence peddling is part and parcel of democracy itself; it's just easier to "see", to isolate results, and to understand as a problem when you concentrate on visible subsets. Sort of like you'll react to a new bad smell in a corner of a room much more easily than an awful stench that surrounds you all the time; familiarity breeds invisibility.

    Think of it this way:  block voting, influence peddling and political catering is the method of democracy, short, sharp and simple. How else would you describe how democracy works? 

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    Sorry about the double post (I'm a putz)…Another thing is that, 'stats' notwithstanding, crime ISN'T down. Just today, Calgary had another gang-related shooting. Muggings are common here in Brentwood, which used to be a nice, child-friendly neighborhood; now, it's full of tweakers and crackheads. The Securicor & Brinks guys, with their bags of dough & .38 specials, though, never get robbed…

    If you want to use the epithet 'racist,' drop a letter over to The Globe & Mail, who've taken to blaming the jane & Finch problem on "fatherless, Jamaican homes." Somehow, the patriarchical Italian, Irish, Chinese, Somalian &c. families also produce their share of gangsters. The Crime Wave in Jamaica seems to be a recent (post-Manley) phenomenon & any criminality spreads like wildfire in ethnic ghettos, "Godfather"-like.

    While I don't own guns (I don't even hunt–eating something that contained crap grosses me out…I'm OCD), I support the Idea of firearms ownership and armed self-defense. As I stated, it certainly works for Armoured Car guards (& the odd person with a concealed carry permit in Canada–they DO exist; the Alberta Judge Milt Harradence had one, but they're rare) & I think victims of stalkers, &c should also get them. After all–unlike guys carrying $–a would-be rape or murder victim can't just give the perp "what he wants"!

    I also echo Colin's comments. People (young, left-of-centre) bemoan gang activity, then buy weed. Your pot purchase bought guns from smugglers. Also, while it may shock effete, tool-ignorant urbanites, guns CAN be made by anyone. Right now, some illiterate old Pashtun guy in sandals is making a perfect AK-47 knock-off in Waziristan & his neighbor is making lead styphnate & cordite for ammo…Making guns (hand, or otherwise) illegal isn't going to stop this, any more than making amphetamines illegal didn't help promote meth cooks. BTW, I think pot should be legalised for this reason, as long as it's not sold or given to minors (I've never smoked pot–it smells like burning garbage).

    Block voting and ethnic lobbying ARE really big problems in Canada (even more so, maybe, in the U.S.: Mayor Bloomberg didn't allow charges to be brought against a mohel in NY who gave babies herpes via oral-genital contact, out of fear of alienating Chassidic voters, NY & Boston politicians who never criticised the IRA). The liberal leadership convention, where people said "don't vote for Rae 'cause his wife's a Jew" (muslims, anti-semites), "he's digging up dirt on the air-india bombing" (sikhs, pro-Babar Khalsa), or "will you de-list the Tamil Tigers?" (Tamils who support this rotten terrorist group) was a big example. Emasculating the anti-terror laws (the Liberal/NDP vote in the commons–both hold onto ridings in sikh bloc areas in Ontario & BC) and the spinless decision here in Calgary to not put yellow ribbons on city vehicles (afraid of offending the salafist vote? the 'Islamic Community Leadership' in calgary is voiciferously ant-NATO & Taliban-sympathetic) are proof of this. We really do have to tighten up our borders (again, arming the border guards=a GOOD idea), deport & keep out people convicted of crimes elsewhere, avoid ghettoizing people (there's also too little intermarriage nowadays–more and more, new immigrants won't marry outside of their religion or ethnic group) and curb the influence of Saudi/Wahhabbi $ and clergy on Canadian muslims (maybe shut down all salafist mosques & deport people like Aly Hindy & Mohammed Elmasry, both anti-semitic, pro-taliban nutjobs). Instead of just wailing at funerals, people in places like Jane & Finch should also cooperate with the cops and turn in scumbag baby-killer gangsters in their midst.

    Sorry for the verbosity,
    Adam

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    [quote]F*** off you racist c***.[/quote] If I didn't make it clear–I don't think any particular culture/race is to blame for these crime trends. However, people fleeing one country (e.g., jamaica) *MAY*, in fact, be doing so 'cause they are wanted there. They come here, settle in a ghetto, & coerce/entice young men into their gangs. This seems to be the Jane & Finch problem. Politicians are scared of upsetting crucial riding blocks by cracking down on these folks, who may also make large contributions to campaigns (esp. municipal ones, which are unregulated). Our very own, white/redneck/Christian "homegrown" bikers are also an enormous problem. Adam

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    [quote]F*** off you racist c***.[/quote]

    If I didn't make it clear–I don't think any particular culture/race is to blame for these crime trends. However, people fleeing one country (e.g., jamaica) *MAY*, in fact, be doing so 'cause they are wanted there. They come here, settle in a ghetto, & coerce/entice young men into their gangs. This seems to be the Jane & Finch problem. Politicians are scared of upsetting crucial riding blocks by cracking down on these folks, who may also make large contributions to campaigns (esp. municipal ones, which are unregulated). Our very own, white/redneck/Christian "homegrown" bikers are also an enormous problem.

    Adam

  • Can you show that tighter controls on firearms did not lead to that decrease

    You're asking Mike to prove a negative?

  • Hi Mike,

       Thanks for responding to my comment. My response follows:

    [quote comment="6172"]most hand guns are already illegal and banned, yet two-thirds of  2002 homicides are by handguns. Meaning of course that most gun related homicides are already committed with banned weapons.[/quote]

    That may be the case, but I can't find any statistics backing up that argument. What percentage of homicides were committed with banned weapons? What percentage were committed with unregistered weapons?

    [quote comment="6172"]Also, from the stats you cite, the rate of gun deaths has been on a steady decline since 1990, along with the general crime rate. [/quote]

    "Steady" is not the right term. "Precipitous" is more accurate. Deaths due to firearms declined slightly between 1979 and 1990 (16% fewer suicides, 12.5% fewer homicides), and a precipitous drop between 1990 and 2002 (48% fewer suicides, 43% fewer homicides). Do the general crime rates follow the same trends? You say they do, but you haven't cited any sources.

    [quote comment="6172"]From the report: In 1995, when gun registration became compulsory, the death rate for firearms-related injuries was 3.8 per 100,000 population. Over the following years, the rate, which had been falling quite steadily since the early 1990s, continued to drop. Of course, it is difficult to measure the contribution that gun control regulations may have made to this decrease. [/quote]

    The report is referring to difficulty in measurement. The report is not implying that those laws did not lead to the decrease, nor is it implying that those laws lead to the decrease, it's saying that causality is not apparent in the data. Can you show that tighter controls on firearms did not lead to that decrease?

  • I like immigration and (although I'm sure there's an exception somewhere) I've never met an immigrant face to face that I didn't like.

    My biggest beef with the United States is that they aren't holding true to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

    <em>"Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door."</em>

  • Colin,

    The same shit goes for you – Jane and Finch is still safer than Calgary.

    "Here is an idea, boycott illegal recreational drugs, every time kids buy drugs at a rave or the guy down the street they are supporting the gangs that cause these problems."

    Here's an idea, legalize drugs and, like the gangsters and rum runners in the 30s, they will lose their power and need to use guns at all – all the assorted gang violence will disappear, just like it did when alcohol was legalized again.

    But why let facts get in the way of a good ignorant rant eh?

  • Adam,

    F*** off you racist c***.

    Crime is down – all crime including violent crime, rape and all the other stuff you mentioned. It isn't the exclusive purview "Jamaicans"  or any other ethnic group (you do realize the same used to be said about the Jews in the 30s, the Irish in the 40s and the Italians in the 50s). We could do NOTHING and crime would still go down – all crime.

    Mandatory minimum sentences don't work, three strikes laws don't work – just look at the US. Banning handguns won't work and neither will your stupid "law and order" feel-good law and order bullshit. Blaming so-called Liberal judges won't either.

    Get your head out of your ass you idiot. I don't need help from redneck, lying pukes like you. I prefer to let the facts and the truth speak for themselves, I don't need to make shit up like you do.

    BTW, asswipe, Calgary has a murder rate 3 times that of Toronto, so Jane and Finch (a place you have probably never been) and Toronto is safer than where you come from.

  • Adam C. Sieracki

    Hopefully, you use a debit card–exclusively–'cause [i]nobody[/i] would work as an armoured car driver if they could no longer carry a handgun. No armoured cars, no ATM cash! Neither would many geologists, etc. work in the back country without an Authorization To Carry (a handgun). The problem is that the Liberals and NDP are "best friends/in the pockets" (if you will) of ethnic, bloc-voting lobbies. The Liberal-NDPers are unwilling to do anything about a gang problem that–aside from 'indigenous' groups like bikers–is largely imported. The Jane & Finch crips & bloods are jamaican imports. Here in calgary, we have a big problem with Chinese and Vietnamese gangs, along with an increasing middle-eastern and North African crime problem. Canada has an immigrant screening problem that's even worse than what's in the U.S. Most of the gangbangers that come here have extensive criminal records at their country of origin, if the authorities even bothered to check. Despite the slanderous things printed in The Globe & Mail and elsewhere about single mothers and Caribbean culture (blaming the two on creating the Toronto gang crisis), the real issue is the extent to which career criminals are allowed into the country, settled into 'multicultural' ghettos and allowed to recruit young lads from 'the community'. Any new immigrant convicted of an indictable offense should be immediately deported (no appeal), even if that means torture, death, or imprisonment back home. New immigrants should also be scattered around the country, instead of being clustered in 'communities' like jane & Finch. Hopefully, the conservative government (not as beholden to ethnic lobbies, as evident from the Anti-Terror bill, along with the long-standing reluctance of the NDP and Liberals to consider/list the tamil Tigers, etc. as a terrorist group, criticise babar khalsa, etc.) will do these things. They've begun arming the border guards (with–ghasp!–handguns), which is a start… As far as handguns go, victims of domestic abuse, stalkers, people fearing muggings and rape (an escalating problem in our country–certainly, it's getting worse here in calgary) should be allowed to carry handguns for self-defense, just like armoured car drivers. Where they've done this in the U.S. (vermont and Alaska don't even require permits), the violent crime rate has gone down substantially; New York City (virtually the same gun laws as Canada since 1911), washington D.C. and Chicago (total BAN on handguns since the '80s) have the worst crime rates in the country. Violent criminal offenders (rape included) should have LIFE WITH NO PAROLE after two offenses (Ephraim Brown's murderer ALREADY shot a four year old). That would address the crime problem. Quit blaming legit handgun owners and attack the gangbangers and their enabling Liberal-NDP politicos and lenient judges.

  • Colin

    Vancouver Police department determined that of the guns used in crimes here 95% were smuggled in from the US and Eastern Europe OPP carried out “operation gun runner” were they determined that around 85% of the crime guns were smuggled in. 2 individuals alone were responsible for bringing in 300 guns. Of the 2,000 or so guns claimed lost or stolen, this also includes military and police guns, hunting rifles and shotguns lost all over the country, many of them ending up in the bottom of a lake somewhere or burnt in a fire. Plus many are lost in the paperwork shuffle. There was a rash of break-in’s in Ontario, which there is much suspicion that the gun registry was being accessed by organized crime and/or that the log books which requires people buying ammunition to write down their addresses were being accessed by gangs or their helpers. Seal up these two sources of information and you have solved most of the problems. Also keep in mind the average modern machine shop could pump out a dozen or so Sten type submachine guns if they wanted to, how are you going to police that? If you don’t like guns, great don’t buy one, but stop telling everyone else how to live because you Ontarians are afraid to clean up the mess that you created at Jane & Finch. Here is an idea, boycott illegal recreational drugs, every time kids buy drugs at a rave or the guy down the street they are supporting the gangs that cause these problems. People like you who want to ban everything in the interest of “Public Safety” are the type of people George Orwell was trying to warn us about. You should read up on what Mao, Hitler, Stalin and the other nasty people have said about private gun ownership, do you really want to be aligned with them?      

  • And you in return,

    Ron

  • "By the way, I'm not addressing the difference between a ban of handguns as opposed to a ban on guns in general or a ban of some other weapon subset."

    then we appear to be engaged in two different discussions. thank you for the dialogue.

    KEvron

  • I re-read this response of of mine:

    —–
    "a democratic majority, with it's position of power, would not ban any behavior of which they approve. that same society will likely take measures to forbid behavior which presents a threat to the public good

    "That certainly wasn't the case in Germany. Hitler had widespread popular support for his gun laws, including the specific exemption of permission for Jews to be armed. I don't think you can argue that was for the public good."
     —–

    Given my confusing answer, my apologies: I read what you wrote as "the majority makes the right decisions" but that isn't what you said (that simplism would be a tough case to support). Instead, the Germans indeed did not ban a behaviour they approved as you rightly described, and they thought they were supporting something to the public good.

    It's just that it didn't work for the public good; it was a popular but wrongful majoritarian banning that disarmed victims, a collossal majoritarian oops.

  • Note re above: if the presumption of innocence is a legitimate principle of law; it is illogical to argue that it is not a moral principle generally; it is so in law because it is properly already so among free human beings.

  • By the way, I'm not addressing the difference between a ban of handguns as opposed to a ban on guns in general or a ban of some other weapon subset. If a peaceful citizen has a right to a tool at all, he has a right to an efficient tool, a right to the best tool, for his intended purpose–and without solid tangible evidence to the contrary, the purpose should be assumed to be legitimate. Period. I hope no-one would argue that a peaceful person has only a right to a lesser hammer or spoon, or any other tool.

  • in each case, these bans were implemented by despotic regimes and contrary to the will of the population.

    addressed above.

  • KEvron: I invite you to visit this site: Keep & Bear Arms. Understand that my only interest in that site is that it compiles news stories of defensive weapons use, mostly in the States but also in other countries. Not all stories relate to handgun use but a number do.

    Also, check this paper, which is more academic in nature: Armed Resistance to Crime / The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. Again, not all statistics relate to handgun use but a number do. Also, this related piece, and this piece.

    That'll do for now. All the sources cited provide references to their sources, should you decide to delve further.

    these examples [from my previous post] aren't really analogous to the ban that's been suggested. in each case, public safety was clearly not the concern; these measures were taken to suppress either the entire polpulation or an ethnic faction within the population.

    Actually, that's not the case. In some of these instances, gun control was enacted for reasons of public safety similar to the arguments we hear today. Echoing Bastiat, the problem was what was not seen when the regulations were enacted. (Bastiat had a great sense of humour and, more to the point, although he was focusing on economics, the problem at core is the same: unintended results of legislative interference). Later, tyrants just used existing laws to their advantage.

    a democratic majority, with it's position of power, would not ban any behavior of which they approve. that same society will likely take measures to forbid behavior which presents a threat to the public good

    That certainly wasn't the case in Germany. Hitler had widespread popular support for his gun laws, including the specific exemption of permission for Jews to be armed. I don't think you can argue that was for the public good.

    So, again: My ethical view is that even if most people who possessed weapons used them in a manner contrary to the public good, that is still no reason to limit the possession of weapons by peaceful, non-coercive citizens.

    Going a little further, and thinking of Mike's posts above and the tragic criminal impacts of drug prohibition:

    (Which actually gets back, but not in a supportive way, to your a democratic majority…would not ban any behavior of which they approve [and] will likely take measures to forbid behavior which presents a threat to the public good. I mean, yeah that's what the majority did, but they didn't even come close to getting it right as far as results go; they banned a disapproved behaviour as a measure to protect the public good and caused far more problems than they solved.)

    Assuming the State, I would much rather police and legal authorities spend their time protecting peaceful citizens from actual thieves, murderers and defrauders than I would have them policing either drugs or gun ownership itself.

    In my view, arguments favouring gun control are arguments from expediency, at best. Sheer expediency is extremely seldom, if ever, a justification for damaging the interests/rights of peaceful citizens and it is easily debateable whether gun control will work or ever has worked, anyways.

    In short, gun control is a damaging, lazy, crude, often arrogant, and societally disrespectful way of badly addressing the problem of real criminals, and it is based on a lowest common-denominator view of the innocent and the victims.

  • oh, another way in which your examples are not analogous to our ban: in each case, these bans were implemented by despotic regimes and contrary to the will of the population.

    KEvron

  • these examples aren't really analogous to the ban that's been suggested. in each case, public safety was clearly not the concern; these measures were taken to suppress either the entire polpulation or an ethnic faction within the population. also, these are examples of wholesale criminalization, whereas our ban in question targets only handguns.  

    all of that aside, i was actually hoping you could provide specifics for your assertion that gun control measures "produce collateral results contrary to utility and safety". i concede that the examples you've already provided suppport your concern of a defenseless population. but what other contrary effects might we incur (specific to our ban in question)?

    KEvron

  • "the attempt to control simple gun possession produces collateral results contrary to utility and safety, including results contrary to the ability of peaceful citizens to protect themselves from both criminals and tyrants"

    could you provide specifics? without them, i'm left with a slippery slope.

    For now I'll concentarte on tyrants: Germany's disarming of (actually only) the Jews prior to WWII; the banning of gun ownership by blacks in apartheid South Africa; the disarming of Turkey's Armenian population around 1915; the Nationalist government of China disarming its civilian citizens prior to WWII and Mao; the disarmed populaces of Idi Amin's Uganda, the Tutsis of Rwanda (will that do?).

  • "attempts to control gun crime through the banning of simple gun possession do not reduce crime to a degree that justifies the attempt."

    in comparing crime statistics between other democracies and our, i have been convinced otherwise.

    "to a degree"

    who's playing the numbers game now?!

    "the attempt to control simple gun possession produces collateral results contrary to utility and safety, including results contrary to the ability of peaceful citizens to protect themselves from both criminals and tyrants"

    could you provide specifics? without them, i'm left with a slippery slope.

    "My ethical view is that even if most people who possessed weapons used them in a manner contrary to the public good, that is still no reason to limit the possession of weapons by peaceful, non-coercive citizens."

    this brings me back to my observation that a democratic majority, with it's position of power, would not ban any behavior of which they approve. that same society will likely take measures to forbid behavior which presents a threat to the public good. this is not unreasonable to me, though the devil may lie in the details.

    KEvron

  • "you've shown nothing as far as any understanding of rationality."

    i'll have to try harder then….

    KEvron

  • KEvron:

    our opinions are not relevant to an objective discussion; they should be the result of a discussion, not the discussion itself.

    Fine. My working hypothesisis that while instigations of coercion, in other words: acts of instigated coercion, are properly controlled and punished, attempts to control gun crime through the banning of simple gun possession do not reduce crime to a degree that justifies the attempt. Also my working hypothesis is that the attempt to control simple gun possession produces collateral results contrary to utility and safety, including results contrary to the ability of peaceful citizens to protect themselves from  both criminals and tyrants.

    That's my utilitarian position. My ethical view is that even if most people who possessed weapons used them in a manner contrary to the public good, that is still no reason to limit the possession of weapons by peaceful, non-coercive citizens.

  • "say it, don't spray it, frothy…."

    Only the insane projections in your mind would consider anyone is actually "spraying" anything.

    Dude… may I suggest some semantic training, along with some serious consideration of some John Locke obeservations?

    As long as you continue to confuse words with things and ideas, you're out of your league.  Which of course you've elegantly shown by your own responses to other comments here.  You might do well at "Yuck Yuck's," heck, you might even sway some people's "opinions," but you've shown nothing as far as any understanding of rationality.

    John Candy might be proud.  Maybe even Michael Moore.  Or just about any Statist that is more inclined to discussion about being popular for the time being, instead of any truth.

    Are you fantasizing about my frothy spittle still? 

  • "….if you can call it that"

    i certainly wouldn't.

    KEvron

  • say it, don't spray it, frothy….

    KEvron

  • " getting a little hot under the collar there, ian? take a deep breath, buddy. get ahold of yourself. feeling better?"

    Your silly projections. In fact, I was grinning when I wrote what I wrote, and there was no 'hot collar'.  Do you think  you have the ability to think rationally or are your silly projections about what other people might be doing/thinking/feeling/sensing important to your subjective silly mind?

    "now, "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. that subjectivity is at the heart of pretty much every conflict mankind has ever undertaken, including these discussions."

    Well, it is to those who think insanely but want to pretend to engage in sane discussions.

    "now hit the showers, kid. you've got frothy spittle all over you…."

    Point to the 'frothy spittle'.  Only in your mind do I have 'frothy spittle' over me, and your mind enjoys fantasy it seems.  There is no 'frothy spittle all over' me, except when a few women I know come by and we all enjoy some kinky experiences.

    None of this has fuck all to do with your assertions, however.   Just as any 'frothy spittle' on my body, placed there by sexy erotic women, have anything to do with your assertions and "un-premises" about reality.

    Say, would you like to see the 'frothy spittle' next time?  Or would that distract you from engaging in conversation about fallacies and insane arguments about "yelling fire in a theatre?"

  • "Cool."

    neato.

     "I now realize that KEvron is merely a fool that has no interest in discussion about truth and reality but prefers drivel and communicating insane ideas."

    gosh! and all along, i thought we were going to be pals, you and i. i'm devastated."There is no decoder ring required for the words I used."

    no, but an editor couldn't hurt.

     "An intelligent mind can understand."

    who talks like this?! lol!"Take care KEvron."

    take hemlock, ian.

    "They are only subjective to fools who have no premises on which to base their argument or conclusions upon – or who don't give a shit if their premises are correct."

    getting a little hot under the collar there, ian? take a deep breath, buddy. get ahold of yourself. feeling better?
     
    now, "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. that subjectivity is at the heart of pretty much every conflict mankind has ever undertaken, including these discussions.

    now hit the showers, kid. you've got frothy spittle all over you….

    KEvron

  • "I now understand that. You're having too much fun with your present hobby."

    whatever that means. my initial comment addressed what i found to be a flaw in mike's argument. you chose to take up the argument. fine. but please note, my objections could be made regardless of personal opinion on the matter.  our opinions are not relevant to an objective discussion; they should be the result of a discussion, not the discussion itself.

    KEvron

    KEvron

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.