I was wondering when this would appear on this board.
First of all, the gun registry (another one of the Liberals’ colossal failures) was ineffective due to its failure to address the true nature of gun violence in Canada and it was saddled with various logistical problems (i.e.- databases crashing, ect.).
Secondly, Martin- whom we should all know is full of shit- is desperate not to lose the election in January. A saavy voter- if you can find one- will remember the failed- and expensive- gun registry.
Thirdly, the tragic shooting deaths of four Mounties was due largely to the legal and penal systems failure to keep incarcerated a violent offender. Canada has a huge problem of that, especially punishing and incarcerating sexual predators (i.e- Toft and Karla Homolka).
Those are just some of the problems.
Readers and contributers of this board should remember that this is an election “promise”.

I’ll make a prediction: if this goes into effect Canada’s crime rate will not drop, it will rise.

And why is that?  The banning of handguns will have little effect.  Everything else in the plan are good steps towards curbing the gun violence.  The banning of the handguns part is basically meaningless.  Its already illegal to carry a handgun. 

So the other details of the program listed, how are those going to cause a rise in Canada’s crime rate?

And no one ever said Canada was crime-free.  But compared to some other places, it aint bad!

relax-

Yes, yes, and yes.  Well said.  Except for the part about Karla Homolka.  I hate just reading her name.

I don’t want to give anyone a coronary, here, but I have to say, I’m all for this.

Now, before you fit me for a funny white coat, or start signing me up for Howard Dean mailing lists (same thing, I know), let me explain.

I’m not for banning gun ownership, per say. I’m not for adding any more meaningless laws here in the states that are proven not to effectively reduce gun crime.
I’m not for any of these ideas at all, here in the U.S.

But I am for Canada.

Why? Do I consider them dangerous? Hahaha… no.
Do I think it will benefit them?
Again, no. Not in the slightest.
And that’s the point.

I would like to see this put into place and furiously enforced in Canada.
I would like to see every single law abiding citizen in Canada stripped of their firearms.

I would like to see this so that, in 1, 5 or 10 years, when Canada’s gun crime rate has shot off the scales, and the cost for enforcing this stupid program has run into the tens of billions, maybe our own vapid leftists will finally have an example of the absurdity of this idea so glaringly crystal clear that even they can grasp it.

Then, maybe...just maybe they’ll finally shut up and rejoin reality.

I would like to see this so that, in 1, 5 or 10 years, when Canada’s gun crime rate has shot off the scales

Do you really think this will cause an “off the scales” increase in gun crime?  Why?  I dont understand that.

up4debate wrote:

“Yes, yes, and yes.  Well said.  Except for the part about Karla Homolka.  I hate just reading her name.”

Thank you. I can’t stand that odious woman and she should be locked away in some hole.

When my father was still teaching, he had students who would tell him where to buy a gun if he so needed. How is gun registry going to fix this problem? There are illegal guns in circulation and, worse yet, there are people out there willing to use them.
In order to tackle not just gun violence but all violence, look at the roots and do not apply band-aid solutions. If drugs increase gun violence, tackle that. If women are abused, tackle men’s (not all men’s) attitudes toward women. So what if a man doesn’t shoot his wife or girlfriend if he stabs her to death. She is still just as dead.
Ultimately, gun control is about common sense, which I’m not seeing in the Canadian experience. What we are currently seeing is an empty “promise” by a soon-to-be-washed-up PM.
Just some thoughts.

It will rise. Just like it did in England and Australia.

Up4debate. Don’t you get it? All those law-abiding Canadians will have to turn in their handguns. Do you honestly believe the criminal element is going to turn their handguns in as well? Disarming good, honest people only makes the criminals job easier. It’s not just a fact it’s good old common sense. Logic at it’s purest.

In order to tackle not just gun violence but all violence, look at the roots and do not apply band-aid solutions.

The ban on handguns in Canada isnt even a band-aid solution.  Its just for show.  You already cant carry a handgun.  This should never change.  If you have a handgun in your home, it should have to be properly stored.  Thats good enough.

The rest of ‘Martins’ plan is good.  More police activity, way harsher sentences.  If you are out in public with a handgun, 5 years, min.  That would be my plan!

What we are currently seeing is an empty “promise” by a soon-to-be-washed-up PM.

Im never sure if you are living in Canada or not, but I got bad news for you, he is probably going to win again.

HiVelSword-

Up4debate. Don’t you get it? All those law-abiding Canadians will have to turn in their handguns. Do you honestly believe the criminal element is going to turn their handguns in as well?

Just curious, where are you from?

No, I dont get it, Im asking.  Both of the statements you made there are true.  I still dont think this will have an effect on gun crime.  And combined with the policing iniatives, and the harsher penalties, I think the later may actually have some effect.

The idea I get from most of what I have read on this site regarding this issue is that, for the most partt criminals will not break into your home if you live in an area with very little gun ownership restrictions.  The idea being that a criminal will not go into a home if he thinks the home owner is armed.

That may be true.  In the US.  I assure you it is not the case here.  The vast majority of homes in Canada do not have guns.  The criminals arent waiting for laws like this to be passed so that they can start home invasions. 

Besides, without any numbers to back this up, I feel pretty comfortable saying that most of the gun crime in Canada has not been a result of home invasions. 
And thats why I think the net effect of the handgun ban will be zero.  Getting Joe Smith to turn in his handgun he keeps at home is not going to stop, or aid Joe Gangster from shooting Jack Gangster.

There was a case where a mans collection of 30 guns were stolen from his home.  14 of them were used in crimes.  But I think this is rare.  Not sure, just the feeling I get.

Besides, without any numbers to back this up, I feel pretty comfortable saying that most of the gun crime in Canada has not been a result of home invasions. 
And thats why I think the net effect of the handgun ban will be zero.  Getting Joe Smith to turn in his handgun he keeps at home is not going to stop, or aid Joe Gangster from shooting Jack Gangster

But you admit that there still are homes with handguns in them.  And criminals do know this.  With a handgun ban they will know that there should be zero chance of a home having them.  Just because its not there currently doesn’t mean that it won’t change in 1-5 years.

But you admit that there still are homes with handguns in them.

Yes.  And in the US, there are home with tigers in them.  What Im saying is, I do not think it is a deterant.  I dont know anyone with a gun in their home.  It just not that common.  There are areas of the country where it is more common than others for sure. 

Im telling you, the shootings in Toronto have more to do with an overall attitude towards violence, and lack of respect for other people.  Its not about homes with armed home owners.

Its not about homes with armed home owners.

I completely agree with that statement.  I can’t believe that any grown person with half an intelligence (which apparently excludes Paul Martin) would think that it’s the GUNS that do the killing.  Allow me to put this one out there:

Guns are tools.  They are operated by people.  Without people, guns don’t do anything.  Hell, power tools can kill people, but when’s the last time you ever saw a drill jump off the workbench and plunge itself into the chest of its owner?  It just doesn’t happen.  The phrase, “Guns don’t kill people...I do,” is surprisingly accurate.  A person intent on doing harm to other people is still going to do it, regardless of whether they have a gun or not.  It just so happens that guns are a very effective tool for getting that particular job done, and the reason that criminals favor them in violent crimes.  In summary, blaming crime on guns is like blaming bad spelling on your pencil.

If this legislation goes through, watch the black market go haywire up there.

If this legislation goes through, watch the black market go haywire up there.

Why?  I think most of the guns used in crimes are probably from the “black market” anyway. 

A person intent on doing harm to other people is still going to do it, regardless of whether they have a gun or not.

I dont think that is true all of the time.  Having an effective tool can be enough to actually go through with it.

And thats why I think the net effect of the handgun ban will be zero.  Getting Joe Smith to turn in his handgun he keeps at home is not going to stop, or aid Joe Gangster from shooting Jack Gangster.

Then why do it at all if it doesn’t stop crime? The Canadian govt. is still disarming law-abiding people and not the criminal. And when a govt. takes one type of firearm away, who is to say that hunting rifles and shotguns are safe from a ban?

BTW, I used to be Boromir. Been a long hiatus.

Couldn’t log back on no matter how hard I tried so I re-registered. Good to see you are still here Up4. You can debate opposite points without resorting to insults. You’ll always have my respect for that. :)

I’m a Canuck who has been lurking here for quite some time. It’s one of the only forums I’ve found where people are willing to debate issues honestly and intelligently ..... at least most of the time (read: Morris).

Though I generally disagree with up4debate (I tend to be a little to the right of his opinions) I have to say he is “dead on” on this issue. Paul Martin’s hand gun ban is pure political posturing put forth to gain votes in Ontario, specifically the Toronto area, where the balance of power resides in the upcoming election. It used to be that our politician’s would pander to voters in Quebec but since they have begun voting en masse for the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the battleground has shifted to southern Ontario.

With the media outlets constantly harping about gun violence in the GTA, basically gang bangers taking out gang bangers, guns have become a hot button issue up here. Internal party polling will always show that taking a “tighter gun control” position in Canada will generally have more upside than downside. It’s basically a vacuous, safe political position which basically has little to do with the reality of the kind of gun crime we see in Canadian cities.

I also agree with up4debate in that this law will not result in an upsurge in crime in Canada. If there is an increase in crime it won’t certainly won’t be because of a sense amongst criminals that it’s now “open season” to terrorize a defenseless population. Anyone who’s grown up in Canada, or lived here for some time, knows that private ownership of handguns is EXCEEDINGLY rare in this country. I can’t stress that enough. The thought of breaking into a house and finding yourself on the business end of a Glock 9mm just isn’t a realistic scenario for any break and enter artist. Given these facts it’s not reasonable to assume that a total handgun ban will cause criminals to think that they have a greater opportunity to commit crime.

Mr. 5 Hole

Then why do it at all if it doesn’t stop crime? The Canadian govt. is still disarming law-abiding people and not the criminal.

I agree with you.  I think its too much effort for a zero effect on the problem.  The real meat of the solution lies in the other points.  The ‘banning handguns’ just looks good on the news, or in talking points. 

My argument was not that the banning of handguns will reduce crime.  My argument is that the whole package is a good step.  And I dont understand how people can think the whole package (policing, more jail time) will result in an increase in crime.

And I base it on one thing:  I dont believe private gun ownership affects crime much in Canada (as it does in the US).

My argument was not that the banning of handguns will reduce crime.  My argument is that the whole package is a good step.  And I dont understand how people can think the whole package (policing, more jail time) will result in an increase in crime.

You don’t mind because I believe you think that civilian handgun ownership has no place in a civilized society. If I’m wrong, I apologize.

I like the more jail time and policing bit but that’s not the whole package. The whole package includes a ban on handguns. And I repeat, if you ban one class of firearms, the others aren’t too far behind.

My boss is one of two people I know anywhere who own and keep handguns in thier home. He has 4 because he likes guns, and he is concerned that now they will be illegal.

Hand gun ownership is not a problem in Canada. The only people who have them are the gang members, and thiers generally comes in smuggled from the US.  That’s right, hand guns are so rare here that we hae to import them from down south.

Martin should take all this money he is spending on this issue and use it to better secure our borders and ports from illegal guns and such coming from the states. 

Stopping these guns, and the criminals associated with them, from entering our country from the US should be top priority.

You don’t mind because I believe you think that civilian handgun ownership has no place in a civilized society.

I dont really understand ... what dont I mind?

I think the ideal should be no handguns needed.  I hear two arguments for handguns.  One is an individual should simply be able to own one.  The second is it is necessary for personal safety.  It would be nice if the second one wasnt needed.

I like the more jail time and policing bit but that’s not the whole package. The whole package includes a ban on handguns.

Thats right.  Thats what Im saying, the whole package isnt going to increase gun crime.

And I repeat, if you ban one class of firearms, the others aren’t too far behind.

Possibly.  Maybe handguns are just one in a series of steps.  Rocket launchers are probably illegal.  So why not handguns.  Why not all guns.  Why not all sharp metal objects.  As long as I get my steak served in bite size pieces and just as juicy!

I dont know about the rest of the world, taking away handguns in Canada is one thing.  Taking away hunting rifles would be an entirely different issue.

I dont really understand ... what dont I mind?

Exactly, you don’t mind that handguns are being banned because you don’t care about them. Not your bag. What if it WAS something you cared about?

Thats right.  Thats what Im saying, the whole package isnt going to increase gun crime.

And you like two out of three so it suits you. Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t suit the handgun owner. But there is still a good possibility that it WILL increase. Stricter enforcement and longer jail sentences look good on paper and sound great but is it really a deterrant? Maybe if more of your criminals are convicted and thrown in jail then maybe crime will go down. But maybe punishment isnt all that it could be up in Canada. Not from there so I don’t know. Digressing a bit but I will state that I like the death penalty. As a deterrant? Not really working all that well. Especially since it takes 20 years to do it. To be a deterrant you take everyone on death row and just do it. Everyone dies. From here on in, you get the death penalty, you have a week to live. I guarantee you it would be more of a deterrant than it is now. It will never happen but it would be hard to disagree that it might make some think twice before committing murder.

So longer jail sentences probably won’t deter the criminal element and more police? Clinton tried that on us. More police but they were behind desks.

Possibly.  Maybe handguns are just one in a series of steps.  Rocket launchers are probably illegal.  So why not handguns.  Why not all guns.

You are being just a little silly now. I’ll let it slide.
So, if you make all guns illegal. What does that mean? Only goverment agencies, police and the military can have them. That of course means that the criminals still have them. Leaving the good people at their mercy. Oh, and the govt. and military only being allowed to have guns? Hey! That might work! It seems to be working in Darfur and Rwanda! Then there were those Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. Those silly criminals kept their guns even though the people were disarmed. They fought back but lost because you see, too many already gave up their guns. No chance to fight back when only a handful are left to fight.

So not even sharp objects? Your Utopia sounds nice but even you have to admit, unobtainable. Why? Golf clubs, bats, tire irons, hammers, belaying pins, chair legs…

But there is still a good possibility that it WILL increase.

Based on what?

You are being just a little silly now. I’ll let it slide.

I was, and thanks.  Its been a hectic day.

I still think its a giant step in Canada from handguns being banned to hunting rifles being banned.  Just my opinion.

In order to tackle not just gun violence but all violence, look at the roots and do not apply band-aid solutions.

Amen! I am so sick and tired of the term itself “Gun Violence”. Why are these morons so concerned with people committing violent acts with guns and not with them being committed any other way??

Here in the Detroit area we just recently had a drunk driver wipe out a mother and her two young boys. I think one of these Canadian Gun-Control Meat-Heads should visit the father and say “I am truly sorry for the loss of your wife and two kids, but I am so grateful for you that they weren’t shot”

Here in the Detroit area we just recently had a drunk driver wipe out a mother and her two young boys. I think one of these Canadian Gun-Control Meat-Heads should visit the father and say “I am truly sorry for the loss of your wife and two kids, but I am so grateful for you that they weren’t shot”

Huh?  That doesnt even make sense.

Huh?  That doesnt even make sense.

It doesn’t make sense, and it shouldn’t to anyone with a brain.. It would make sense to a gun-control advocate.

Is there something I need to explain to you?

Canada needs to hose the scum of it’s streets.

I still think its a giant step in Canada from handguns being banned to hunting rifles being banned.  Just my opinion.

I think you’re right.

Fact is if the government tried to ban the ownership and use of shotguns and rifles there would be a huge outcry especially from rural/agricultural areas.

The other reason the government will not ban shotguns and long rifles is simply because the restrictions they have already put in place like the requirement for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and the restrictions on ammunition sales, have already drastically reduced the amount of people who own and use these weapons. The evidence I have of this is the nine years I worked for one of Canada’s largest retailers (Give like Santa save like Scrooge!!). I had a job much like the kid in Bowling for Columbine who sold Mikey ammunition (difference being that I actually knew that that kind of sale was illegal and always enforced the rules for proper identification when selling ammunition!!). In the years after the introduction of the FAC and ammunition purchasing rules we saw a drastic reduction in the sale of shotguns and rifles along with ammunition. Most people just got tired of the hassle of complying with the law and gave up hunting altogether. For that reason I doubt you’ll see the government ever seeking a ban on weapons that are becoming even more rare every year!

Just my opinion.

Go Leafs.

I still think its a giant step in Canada from handguns being banned to hunting rifles being banned.  Just my opinion.

Up4,

Just my opinion, too, but I think you are overlooking the very nature of many liberals (not all) when it comes to certain issues . . . like banning firearms . . . and I mean ALL firearms including hunting rifles.  On any gun control issue they take what you give them, then come back later with a new plan wanting more and more.  They disguise themselves well to conceal hidden agendas.

For that reason I doubt you’ll see the government ever seeking a ban on weapons that are becoming even more rare every year!

Mr. 5 Hole,

I would be surprised to find that hunting weapons in Canada are not becoming more rare every year.  Perhaps the rate of increase in the number of hunting weapons sold in Canada has declined in recent years, but unless hunting rifles and shotguns are being exported or destroyed, there would still be a yearly increase in private ownership, however slight that might be.

Here’s what I mean to say:  I would be surprised to find that hunting weapons in Canada are becoming more rare every year.

The posts about political posturing on Martin’s part are correct. But knowing him and his party (well- pretty much any politician), nothing will be done. I don’t think the government has the guts, good sense, fortitude or morality to put an end to things like organised crime or gangs, which cause the kind of gun violence (for lack of a better term) we are seeing. Also, the government has no plans of stopping prostitution or drugs, activities of organised crime. So much for the ban on guns.
People shouldn’t have to arm themselves to protect themselves. That’s what police are for. However, I don’t blame people for wanting guns or any kind of weapon. If people aren’t going to be protected, what else are they to do?
Usually, the kind of people who legally own guns are those who hunt for a living.
The gun law proposal, aside from scoring political points, is redundancy on top of uselessness. Canada, even before the failed gun registry, had one of the strictest gun laws in the world. Does Martin think Canadians have very short memories? Again, the legal banning or registry of guns is not going to eliminate violence because the motives and means will always be there, just not taken care of.

Just my opinion, too, but I think you are overlooking the very nature of many liberals (not all) when it comes to certain issues . . . like banning firearms . . . and I mean ALL firearms including hunting rifles.  On any gun control issue they take what you give them, then come back later with a new plan wanting more and more.  They disguise themselves well to conceal hidden agendas.

Im sure there are some liberals like that, as I am sure there are conservatives who approach other issues the same way (stem cell research ... abortion, etc...).  I feel pretty condifent in saying that this is not the case with the current Canadian Liberal party, and this proposal.  They only reason its being proposed is to win votes, because this is a hot issue, with the 50 gun murders in Toronto this year.  Thats it.  I find it really difficult to believe it is part of some larger conspiracy/agenda.

I don’t think you can say that the laws Canada already has in place have had no effect on gun crime. Per capita murders in Canada is about a third that of the US.

Even though violence is rising, I doubt it is coming anywhere near the level of the US. So what explains how Canada has kept violence so low? If it’s not gun laws, and it’s not a lack of a “culture of fear,” then what it is it?

Canada is NOT the US and we still have problems no matter what anyone says. Things like sexual violence aren’t low. Even if the overall violence level is lower than what one might see in the US, that still doesn’t lessen it as a problem.

Still, what is it about the US that makes it three times more violent than any other Western democracy?

Resro, is your question somehow substantive or designed to idolise Canada somehow, because if it is the latter you can’t phrase the argument as a Canada vs. America argument but rather as a comparison.

Maybe these statistics might help:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040706/d040706a.htm (prison term)

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050420/d050420a.htm (sexual violence)

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm (table of violence)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Ok, so what makes the US more murderous than all other Western democracies?

I’m not trying to idolize Canada at all. I just want to know why the US has so many more murders.

I would be surprised to find that hunting weapons in Canada are not becoming more rare every year.  Perhaps the rate of increase in the number of hunting weapons sold in Canada has declined in recent years, but unless hunting rifles and shotguns are being exported or destroyed, there would still be a yearly increase in private ownership, however slight that might be.

Buzz,

You may be right. The evidence I have is only anecdotal. Where I live the police has an almost yearly gun amnesty program where people can take guns in to the police station, no questions asked, where they will eventually be destroyed. From talking to a lot of cops I play hockey with they’ve been seeing a lot of legal weapons, hunting rifles and shotguns, being turned in by people who just don’t hunt anymore due to the restrictions (i.e. FAC requirement). Again this is just anecdotal evidence so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

This might also be something that I see more because I live in an urban area. Guys here use these weapons basically once a year during hunting season so a lot of them don’t want to put up with the hassle for a once a year activity. A lot of people don’t keep the weapons for protection because our laws vis a vis storage of guns and ammunition make it nearly impossible to keep a gun for self defense while still complying with the law. Rural areas might be a lot different where guns are used for hunting as well as for varmint control.

Again, just my opinion.

Go Leafs.

Must…resist … getting dragged… into… another gun debate… damn… can’t.

Up in Canada, which Michael Moore assures us is a crime-free socialist utopia

Never happened. Don’t simplify Moore’s argument into black or white terms. He suggests that violent crime, in particular gun crime, is less of a problem in Canada than the US. It is. It’s not a slight against the US. It’s not idolization of Canada (relaxitsjustme – do you that argument in every thread?). It’s fact. Why?

So, in other words, their handgun registry hasn’t been effective in preventing a rise in gun violence.

It wasn’t just a handgun registry; it was a registry for all guns…

- The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says the gun registry is key to reducing the misuse of guns and makes it easier for police to track illegal guns. The association also says it makes gun owners more accountable.

Further…

- The Canadian Police Association claims attacks against the gun registry are contributing to cost overruns. The association says police officers use the database 2000 times a day and support the program.
Source.

And we can see just how effective it’s been.

The Gun Registry is a great idea that has been poorly, poorly executed. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police seem to like it… what’s wrong with people having to register their guns? I register my car. And it can do a lot more than kill people.

I thought in Canada there were no criminals!  It’s as if everything Michael Moore told me was bullshit!

Michael Moore never said that. It’s the whole over-simplification thing.

…greatly expanded our right for private citizens to defend themselves,

In what way?

and well as putting more cops on the street and implementing tougher sentences.

But that’s exactly what Martin is promising to do. Points one, two and three of his five-part strategy (which you’ve posted at the top of this thread). If it worked down there for you guys, why not up here?

What’s interesting, is that the Conservative opposition appears to be saying the same thing as Martin…

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, meanwhile, issued a statement Thursday saying he supports tough gun control. He added that a Conservative government would:

- crack down on illegal gun use;
- stop the flow of illegal guns at our border; and
- bring in mandatory minimum prison sentences.

I guess everyone is just seizing on an issue in a grab for votes..

It wasn’t just a handgun registry; it was a registry for all guns…

The gun registry proposed and built by Allan Rock and the Chretien Liberals is not the registry Lee was talking about. In Canada separate registration of handguns has been mandatory since 1934.

I thought in Canada there were no criminals!  It’s as if everything Michael Moore told me was bullshit!

Michael Moore never said that. It’s the whole over-simplification thing.

Mikey also said we don’t lock our doors up here. Riiiiggghht. Sounds like that whole over-simplification thing again.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, meanwhile, issued a statement Thursday saying he supports tough gun control. He added that a Conservative government would:

- crack down on illegal gun use;
- stop the flow of illegal guns at our border; and
- bring in mandatory minimum prison sentences.

I guess everyone is just seizing on an issue in a grab for votes..

I had a .pdf of the Conservative party platform from the last election. It reads the same as their platform for this election. They haven’t just decided to jump on the issue after a particularly bad summer in the GTA as the Liberal party has done. You’ll also note that Harper’s specific targets are “illegal handguns”, the one’s that are actually being used in the vast majority of gun violence we’ve been reading about lately. Are the Conservatives using a hot button issue to win votes...of course they are. But at least their message has been more on target as far as dealing with illegal handguns and the message has been consistent over a period of years rather than a period of days.

and Go Leafs Go!

Indeed. Have to be careful what I type as I live and work deep in the heart of enemy territory....Senators territory.

Go Leafs.

The gun registry proposed and built by Allan Rock and the Chretien Liberals is not the registry Lee was talking about. In Canada separate registration of handguns has been mandatory since 1934.

You are absolutely correct.. I was confusing what Lee wrote with what other posters had written. My mistake.

But, since we’re going down this road, I’ll ask, how can Lee claim that our handgun laws have been unsuccessful? We have significantly less handgun-related deaths across the board than the US. I mean, it’s been a bad year in T-dot, but we’re still looking at about 50 shooting deaths and 60 or so murders in total. Enviable stats in a comparably-sized US city. Dallas, roughly 2/5 our size, had 248 murders last year.

As with any issue, there’s certainly more than one contributing factor. But considering our view towards handguns is one of the major differences between the two countries, it’s worth exploring.

Mikey also said we don’t lock our doors up here. Riiiiggghht. Sounds like that whole over-simplification thing again.

Touché. However, Lee was putting words in Moore’s mouth that Moore hadn’t said.

I found that part of the movie humourous more than anything. Living in Toronto, I would recommend the viewing audience doesn’t take it too literally. For what’s its worth, most people I know, when they are at home, indeed don’t lock their doors.

I had a .pdf of the Conservative party platform from the last election. It reads the same as their platform for this election. They haven’t just decided to jump on the issue after a particularly bad summer

Martin and other federal and provincial ministers have been meeting with community reps for weeks on the issue of gun violence. Besides, if Martin didn’t do anything, people would complain that he’s doing nothing. It’s a cause that’s important to Torontonians right now. Why not seize on it? “Ban Handguns” was no doubt a headline grabber. So was “Harper promises to cut the GST.”

But at least their message has been more on target as far as dealing with illegal handguns

How does it deal with the issue any more than Martin’s plan? Harsher penalties, tighter borders, more policing. They seem very similar to me.

We do appear to agree on one thing: Go Leafs.

But, since we’re going down this road, I’ll ask, how can Lee claim that our handgun laws have been unsuccessful? We have significantly less handgun-related deaths across the board than the US. I mean, it’s been a bad year in T-dot, but we’re still looking at about 50 shooting deaths and 60 or so murders in total. Enviable stats in a comparably-sized US city. Dallas, roughly 2/5 our size, had 248 murders last year.

I think we’d agree more than you think. I actually like the gun laws we currently have (with the exception of the firearms registry and the ammunition sales restrictions) as I do favour tough restrictions on firearm ownership. I also agree with you that our restrictions on handgun ownership in particular have been very successful. That being said, my major quibble with gun control advocates (and you alluded to this) is that they tend to see gun control and and the lack of gun violence as a direct zero sum equation. While I do believe that tough gun laws have helped keep Canada’s murder rate low in comparison to the US, I do think that historic/cultural differences between our societies play a much larger role in the statistical disparity. I guess I’m kind of straddling the fence here and saying both you and Lee are right to a certain extent on this subject. 

Martin and other federal and provincial ministers have been meeting with community reps for weeks on the issue of gun violence. Besides, if Martin didn’t do anything, people would complain that he’s doing nothing. It’s a cause that’s important to Torontonians right now. Why not seize on it? “Ban Handguns” was no doubt a headline grabber. So was “Harper promises to cut the GST.”

But at least their message has been more on target as far as dealing with illegal handguns

How does it deal with the issue any more than Martin’s plan? Harsher penalties, tighter borders, more policing. They seem very similar to me.

I agree that Paul Martin has no choice but to address the issue of gun violence in the GTA seeing as it’s dominated the headlines there and in the national news for the better part of the last year. And, like you, I agree with the less headline worthy portions of his announcement. I simply disagree with the outright ban on handguns because that portion does absolutely nothing to address the current upswing in gun violence we’ve seen in this province. When combined with the existing gun registry the handgun ban undermines the rest of Martin’s platform by the fact that it just reeks of political gimmickry.

errr......Go Leafs. (rough night .... 2-1 :-( )

Mr. 5-Hole wrote:

“Indeed. Have to be careful what I type as I live and work deep in the heart of enemy territory....Senators territory.

Go Leafs.”

You’re a fearless man.

But seriously, you raise a good point about the respective political parties platforms on this issue. The Liberals realise that this is a hot-button issue and are desperate to win, ergo, the gun control proposal, which holds no water. The Conservatives are just repeating what has been in their books already.

***SORRY, QUOTE BUTTON NOT WORKING***

“Especially war criminals like Bush and thieves like Delay and Duke. But no, they don’t obey laws. That just means the laws shouldn’t have loopholes to give them more leeway around them.”

Oh, Morris, you truly are a moonbat. So, when a criminal carries a pistol without some type of carry permit, there is some loophole that allows him to carry a gun? There is a loophole that allows him to rob, rape or murder?

Use your allowance and go buy some crayons. Rembember to try to color within the lines.

"Crime’s been “dropping”, because the prisons are overcrowded, and older cases are being reviewed with DNA testing, thus jamming the prosecution of new crime.”

Um....I....ah.

Words can’t describe what a complete and utter moron you are. Did you even remotely read this before posting it?

Oh, lemme guess. Your medication was wearing off?

I live in a suburb of Washington D.C. I used to live in DC but moved and will never live there again. I can’t turn on the local news anymore without hearing of a shooting with a handgun in the city. Everyone from gang bangers to innocent robbery victims. I would say 90% by handguns. Now tell me. Is the handgun ban that has been in place since 1976 working? Thousands of handguns were turned in in 1976 all legal. A criminal will not turn in a gun. It is a tool of his trade. It is how he makes his living. (yes I am using he as most gun grimes are committed by males) Is it society as a whole? Yes. Are criminals getting lighter sentences? Yes. Do I think gun bans are the solution? No.
Yes, you are going to say that’s the US not Canada. Look at other countries with and without restrictive gun laws. The UK has a high crime rate and another Scandinavian country (I forget which one) I think either requires or encourages gun ownership has one of the lowest.
I am in the military and statistics show that I have less of a chance of getting killed in Iraq than I do in the city 10 miles away from me. At least in Iraq I have a chance of defending myself.

Especially war criminals like Bush and thieves like Delay and Duke. But no, they don’t obey laws.

Im no fan of Bush, but Morris, just stop.  Do you really think with a statement like that, anyone is going to actually consider and think about what you have to say?

Im no fan of Bush, but Morris, just stop.

I concur. Morris, smarten up.