Martin Vows to Ban Handguns

[Jas]

The Liberal strategy for making the streets of Canada's cities safer begins with banning all handguns and getting tougher on crime. Paul Martin announced the proposed ban in a troubled Toronto neighbourhood on Thursday.

"I've come to the conclusion that significant change is needed. I've come to the conclusion that we should ban handguns," Martin said at a community centre in north Etobicoke, a Toronto suburb rocked by a spate of shootings this year.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/elxn-martin-guns.html

There have been regulations concerning the use of handguns in Canada for over 100 years. Being as the ppl who use handguns to shoot others haven't abided by them in the past, what makes him think that they will now? Will a gangmember honestly think, "Well, I was going to shoot that bastard, but now that handguns are illegal, I might have to settle for stabbing him. Damned gun control laws!"

[Thanz]

Obviously, the question is not whether some gangmember stabs intead of shoots because he is afraid of the ban on handguns. The question is whether the ban would make it much harder for the gangmember to get a handgun in the first place. As most gangmembers probably don't have handguns legally now, the question is whether the ban would have any impact on the already illegal trade in handguns. The only hope that it would is in restricting supply - but with the US so close I would think that it might be hard to have such an effect.

So, I'm not sure a ban on handguns is the right tool to combat the current problem.

[shecky]

Does this sort of thing really fly in Canada?

[username]

Has any form of gun control ever succeeded in reducing violence in a society?

[Segnosaur]

Does this sort of thing really fly in Canada?

Sadly, yes.

The Liberal plan is a blatant attempt to get votes in urban areas (even if it does alienate people in parts of the west or rural areas). Unfortunately, people living in urban ontario areas are taking a knee-jerk reaction to the problem of gun violence, without making any attempt to understand the issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051213/ELXNPOLL13/TPNational/Canada

[Tmy]

Has any form of gun control ever succeeded in reducing violence in a society?

Violence, probably not. Violent gun deaths. Id guess yes.

[username]

Violence, probably not. Violent gun deaths. Id guess yes.

That could be true, but death by firearm and death by any other means still=death.

Ultimately we all have our views on guns, good, bad, don't care etc.

Policy should be more results driven in my opinion. Various gun control measures have been implemented in nations all over the world.

I would think at this point there is enough evidence to determine conclusively whether any form of gun control has ever led to a reduction is violence/death in a society.

If the answer is yes, then perhaps all nations should follow whatever policy worked. If the answer is no, then perhaps we should cease debating gun control and look for other methods to reduce violence in a society.

[Segnosaur]

I would think at this point there is enough evidence to determine conclusively whether any form of gun control has ever led to a reduction is violence/death in a society.


Unfortunately, I don't think that you'll ever be able to really make any conclusions about that. After all, violent crime has many factors... society demographics, incomes, historical context, geography, etc. I doubt it would be possible to effectively issolate gun control out of all these factors.


If the answer is yes, then perhaps all nations should follow whatever policy worked.

Of course, one possible problem with that is that it ignores certain basic issues of freedom.

Lets face it, we (as a society) do like to do things for pleasure or to simplify our lives even though there is risk involved. People have backyard swimming pools, even though there are accidental drownings. People drive cars, even though thousands die in automobile accidents. Many people derive pleasure from collecting guns, or shooting competitively. I don't want to sound too mean-spirited, but we (as a society) have to decide whether we want to eliminate activities people enjoy even if they can cause deaths.

[username]

Unfortunately, I don't think that you'll ever be able to really make any conclusions about that. After all, violent crime has many factors... society demographics, incomes, historical context, geography, etc. I doubt it would be possible to effectively issolate gun control out of all these factors.

True, but if we look at every nation to have implemented gun control in any form and compared their violent death/serious injury/violent crime, whatever rate in a before/after fashion I would think if gun control was effective there should be an observable trend. If there is no observable trend I think that would argue loudly that the restrictions didn't achieve their stated goals.

Of course, one possible problem with that is that it ignores certain basic issues of freedom.

I agree, but before we decide whether the freedom to own firearms is worth it, we first need to understand how much better off we would be (if at all) without the guns. If getting rid of the guns doesn't have any effect on violent crime then it is all a moot point. If it does have an effect then we can quantify at least some of the benefits and make an informed choice on the matter.

Lets face it, we (as a society) do like to do things for pleasure or to simplify our lives even though there is risk involved. People have backyard swimming pools, even though there are accidental drownings. People drive cars, even though thousands die in automobile accidents. Many people derive pleasure from collecting guns, or shooting competitively. I don't want to sound too mean-spirited, but we (as a society) have to decide whether we want to eliminate activities people enjoy even if they can cause deaths.[/QUOTE]

[Jas]

Does this sort of thing really fly in Canada?

Unfortuanately.

Watch us elect another minority Liberal gov't, even though they've been proven to be corrupt.

*sigh*

[Jorghnassen]

Banning handguns in Canada is silly, for the simple reason that the amount of restrictions to get them at the moment is high enough that your random petty criminal doesn't have one in the first place, and that it won't affect the handguns used by organized crime. To reduce handgun crimes in Canada you need to tackle illegal gun trafficking (this goes for the US as well) and organized crime (which, understandably, is a tough problem, but that's the freaking job of the government). Making ineffective bans and gun registries is just pandering for votes.

As for effectiveness of gun control in general, it's really hard to compare any two nations, as others have pointed out, there are too many factors involved to say a specific type of legislation (or lack of it) will work everywhere. Some forms of control that work in a particular cultural/economical/demographic setting might not work in another, and vice versa.

[Orwell]

Unfortuanately.

Watch us elect another minority Liberal gov't, even though they've been proven to be corrupt.

*sigh*

I can't stand the liberals, and I won't vote for them. But there's a good reason why Canadians will probably vote for another liberal minority government, and that's the fact that the reformatories (that's how I call the unholy alliance of the old progressive conservatives with the Reform party) are totally out of step with the values of most Canadians: they can't get significant support in most urban areas and east of Manitoba. Canadians aren't really voting for the liberals, they're voting against the conservatives. And unfortunately, with the exception of Quebec, they're not taking into the other alternatives.

[Segnosaur]

True, but if we look at every nation to have implemented gun control in any form and compared their violent death/serious injury/violent crime, whatever rate in a before/after fashion I would think if gun control was effective there should be an observable trend. If there is no observable trend I think that would argue loudly that the restrictions didn't achieve their stated goals.

Well, the problem is, any trend is going to be picked up on by people trying to support their own cause.

For example, take Canada... since the long-gun registry came into effect, fire-arm deaths have declined. Gun control advocates have almost wet themselves over this news.

Does that mean that gun control (specifically the gun control registry) works in Canada? Well, lets see:
- deaths from firearms were ALREADY on the decline before the law was brought into play
- shooting deaths in the United States (the country that we have the most in common with culturally, and a country with much more liberal gun control laws) ALSO saw a decrease in shooting deaths over the same time frame.

So, how do we interpret those statistics?

[Segnosaur]

Just so you know where I'm arguing from, I want to state that I'm not a member of the conservative party. I would consider myself a pragmatic libertarian (I think less government interference is better, both in economic policy and social policy, although wouldn't go as far as someone like shanek). Admittedly, I do not like certain aspects of the conservative party (in particular the religious influence). However, I will likely vote conservative in the next election, as they are the party which is most likely to implement 'libertarian' policies (both economically and socially).

I also recognize that A) even though the conservative party does attract religious nutjobs, there are also many reasonable people in the party. There are, however, religous nutjobs in the other parties as well. B) If they get elected, they would have 4 years to run the country. If they started behaving like nutjobs (and ignoring the important issues like cutting taxes), then they will have a limited amount of time to cause problems.

I can't stand the liberals, and I won't vote for them. But there's a good reason why Canadians will probably vote for another liberal minority government, and that's the fact that the reformatories (that's how I call the unholy alliance of the old progressive conservatives with the Reform party) are totally out of step with the values of most Canadians:

Personally, I don't really think they're that much out of step with the values of "real Canadians". Keep a few things in mind:
- Ontario (the party that has voted for the Federal Liberals the past few elections) ALSO voted for the strong fiscal conservativism of Mike Harris
- Same sex marriage? Well, guess what... at the time the Liberals brought in C-38, most Canadians DID NOT support the Liberal's plan to change marriage definition
- Medicare? Many opinion polls have shown that the majority of Canadians favour at least some involvement of the private sector in health care
- Canadians also seem to think that the Conservatives have a better plan to handle crime and the military

So, to get a little more off topic, why do the Liberals seem to be doing so well? Personally, I think its due to a few factors:

- they've been very effective at spreading false fear of the conservatives (it doesn't matter whether people would agree with the conservative policies, as long as they LOOK scary, that's the issue.)
- Canadians, and in particular Ontarians (mistakenly) believed to be better at handling national unity. (This, despite the fact that polls show support for Separatism in Quebec is very strong)
- Admitedly, the economy IS doing well, and many people will attribute that to the Liberals. But then, the whole global economy seems to be doing well, and in reality Canada's economy has fallen behind that of many other countries, including the U.S. (where they have lower unemployment, stronger GDP growth, etc.)

[Jorghnassen]

Well, the problem is, any trend is going to be picked up on by people trying to support their own cause.

For example, take Canada... since the long-gun registry came into effect, fire-arm deaths have declined. Gun control advocates have almost wet themselves over this news.

Does that mean that gun control (specifically the gun control registry) works in Canada? Well, lets see:
- deaths from firearms were ALREADY on the decline before the law was brought into play
- shooting deaths in the United States (the country that we have the most in common with culturally, and a country with much more liberal gun control laws) ALSO saw a decrease in shooting deaths over the same time frame.

So, how do we interpret those statistics?

The best way to look at this would be to look for a changepoint in the regression of gun deaths over time (inputting all relevant factors). It should be statistically possible to see if the gun registry had a significant effect on the trend. The same goes with arguments against gun control which often try to imply that gun restricting legislation increased crime in places such as the UK, but when you look at the trend, you see that the increased crime rate started before the legislation and that the rate of increase did not change after the legislation. Which would imply a lack of effect rather than an opposite effect (to what the legislation was trying to do).

[Orwell]

Just so you know where I'm arguing from, I want to state that I'm not a member of the conservative party. I would consider myself a pragmatic libertarian (I think less government interference is better, both in economic policy and social policy, although wouldn't go as far as someone like shanek). Admittedly, I do not like certain aspects of the conservative party (in particular the religious influence). However, I will likely vote conservative in the next election, as they are the party which is most likely to implement 'libertarian' policies (both economically and socially).

I also recognize that A) even though the conservative party does attract religious nutjobs, there are also many reasonable people in the party. There are, however, religous nutjobs in the other parties as well. B) If they get elected, they would have 4 years to run the country. If they started behaving like nutjobs (and ignoring the important issues like cutting taxes), then they will have a limited amount of time to cause problems.



Personally, I don't really think they're that much out of step with the values of "real Canadians". Keep a few things in mind:
- Ontario (the party that has voted for the Federal Liberals the past few elections) ALSO voted for the strong fiscal conservativism of Mike Harris
- Same sex marriage? Well, guess what... at the time the Liberals brought in C-38, most Canadians DID NOT support the Liberal's plan to change marriage definition
- Medicare? Many opinion polls have shown that the majority of Canadians favour at least some involvement of the private sector in health care
- Canadians also seem to think that the Conservatives have a better plan to handle crime and the military

So, to get a little more off topic, why do the Liberals seem to be doing so well? Personally, I think its due to a few factors:

- they've been very effective at spreading false fear of the conservatives (it doesn't matter whether people would agree with the conservative policies, as long as they LOOK scary, that's the issue.)
- Canadians, and in particular Ontarians (mistakenly) believed to be better at handling national unity. (This, despite the fact that polls show support for Separatism in Quebec is very strong)
- Admitedly, the economy IS doing well, and many people will attribute that to the Liberals. But then, the whole global economy seems to be doing well, and in reality Canada's economy has fallen behind that of many other countries, including the U.S. (where they have lower unemployment, stronger GDP growth, etc.)

Yeah, there are nut-jobs in all parties, but it seems that the conservative party has a bit of difficulty keeping their nut-jobs quiet. I mean, during the last election campaign, several members of the conservative party were pretty effective at helping Liberals convince Canadians believe that the Tories were a party of cranky right wing bigots.

As you so rightly pointed out, Liberal strategy concerning the Tories involves painting them as a bunch of social conservative extremists. So every time one of those idiots opened their mouths and said something bigoted, Liberals were rejoicing. It doesn't help that Harper mentioned opening the Gay marriage can of worms again if he got elected. It might make sense politically, he probably needs to placate the bigots, but it sure gives a bad impression, eh?

[Segnosaur]

Yeah, there are nut-jobs in all parties, but it seems that the conservative party has a bit of difficulty keeping their nut-jobs quiet. I mean, during the last election campaign, several members of the conservative party were pretty effective at helping Liberals convince Canadians believe that the Tories were a party of cranky right wing bigots.


Yes, the nutjobs in the party do seem to get a lot of press. But as I said before, the majority of Conservatives are probably very reasonable people, and even many of the ones that hold social conservative views probably have other priorities (such as the economy).

So, people become fixated on the nut-jobs. Its unfortunate. But, you seem like the intelligent type of person... do YOU let that sort of negative press influence your voting patterns?


It doesn't help that Harper mentioned opening the Gay marriage can of worms again if he got elected.

Actually, I can think of a few reasons why it actually made sense politically to bring the issue up...

- The issue was probably going to be mentioned anyways; however, by bringing it up himself (and doing so early in the campaign) he hopefully got it out of the way so that we could now discuss REAL issues. It will also help stop people from accusing them of having a "hidden agenda"

- Despite what many people may think, the Liberal/NDP stand on gay marraige was NOT necessarily held by a majority of Canadians. There were opinion polls which showed that the majority of people either were opposed to any legal recongnition, or who supported the concept of a 'civil union' as proposed by the conservatives. See: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2491

[Orwell]

Yes, the nutjobs in the party do seem to get a lot of press. But as I said before, the majority of Conservatives are probably very reasonable people, and even many of the ones that hold social conservative views probably have other priorities (such as the economy).

So, people become fixated on the nut-jobs. Its unfortunate. But, you seem like the intelligent type of person... do YOU let that sort of negative press influence your voting patterns? If you trying to convince me to vote for the reformatories, it won't work. :) There are many reasons why wouldn't vote for them, reasons that have to do with their policies... For starters, let's just say that I don't share their "libertarian" ideals. Being from Quebec, I also don't agree with their position regarding constitutional problems... And there are other things that bother me.

Actually, I can think of a few reasons why it actually made sense politically to bring the issue up...

- The issue was probably going to be mentioned anyways; however, by bringing it up himself (and doing so early in the campaign) he hopefully got it out of the way so that we could now discuss REAL issues. It will also help stop people from accusing them of having a "hidden agenda"

- Despite what many people may think, the Liberal/NDP stand on gay marraige was NOT necessarily held by a majority of Canadians. There were opinion polls which showed that the majority of people either were opposed to any legal recongnition, or who supported the concept of a 'civil union' as proposed by the conservatives. See: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2491

I'm one of those Canadians who is in favour of equal rights for homosexual couples. The Conservative's position on this issue is one of the reasons why I won't vote for them.

[Segnosaur]

If you trying to convince me to vote for the reformatories, it won't work. :) There are many reasons why wouldn't vote for them, reasons that have to do with their policies... For starters, let's just say that I don't share their "libertarian" ideals. Being from Quebec, I also don't agree with their position regarding constitutional problems... And there are other things that bother me.


That's fine... as long as you've actually examined the real evidence, looked at the party policies, and made your decision based on that, rather than basing your views on the equiation "conservative=scary monster".


I'm one of those Canadians who is in favour of equal rights for homosexual couples. The Conservative's position on this issue is one of the reasons why I won't vote for them.

I'm pretty apathetic to the whole gay marriage issue. I do feel that homosexual couples should be given the same legal rights and priviledges as hetrosexual couples. That could be through the conservative "civil union" ideal, or by something like C68.

However, I do have serious concerns that bill C68 will cause problems with freedom of religion. Although I'm an athiest, I do think people have a right to their religious beliefs (regardless of how misguided I think they are). And there have been various cases where "gay rights" have trumped "religious freedoms". Bill C68 should have been more explicit when it came to religious protection (in particular for religous buildings belonging to churches)

As for the "civil union" ideal, I'd be ok with that as well. I have asked people just what exactly they have against the concept, and not one person has actually given a reason why its not a good thing. They end up spouting off comments about "second class citizens" and all sorts of slogans, but without actual content.

[Rockin' Rick]

Violence, probably not. Violent gun deaths. Id guess yes.
Most likely not.
When you disarm the public the criminals are more likely to exert violence in whatever form suits them. A gun is still more efficient and safer for the criminal than a knife. An unarmed victim cannot shoot back. But they may be able to struggle away from being stabbed.

The stats change with time, but when Chicago instituted their gun ban they almost overnight went to the top of the list as the murder captial of the world.

Plus firearm bans open a black market for guns. And the only way to settle disputes in a black market is through violence. So the gun ban not only makes it safer for the criminal but it promotes violence between the criminals.

[Jorghnassen]

Most likely not.


This depends on the type of gun death (e.g. proportion of crimes of passion by otherwise lawful citizen vs armed "career" criminals) and availability of illegal weapons. If the proportion of gun death due to crimes of passion is high and the availability of illegal weapons is low, then restricting access to legal weapons (all other factors staying constant) should reduce the number of gun deaths. Obviously neither of these conditions are filled in the US, so trying to restrict access to legal guns isn't going to do much.

[rudar]

You are further assuming that crimes of passion would not occur in the absence of easy access to legal civilian-held firearms. As in: ``Why, I'm so mad I could shoot you, but all I have is a knife, so, uh, well, I guess I won't bother.'' Which may or may not be the case; I have no particular reason to hold a belief on the question one way or the other. But it does glare out as one more condition that would need to be demonstrated to be the case before concluding that restricting firearms would reduce death rates.

[Jorghnassen]

You are further assuming that crimes of passion would not occur in the absence of easy access to legal civilian-held firearms. As in: ``Why, I'm so mad I could shoot you, but all I have is a knife, so, uh, well, I guess I won't bother.'' Which may or may not be the case; I have no particular reason to hold a belief on the question one way or the other. But it does glare out as one more condition that would need to be demonstrated to be the case before concluding that restricting firearms would reduce death rates.

I'll point it out for you:

...should reduce the number of gun deaths.

I made no assumptions regarding the total number of deaths.

[Molinaro]

I am Canadian.

Pointing a gun at someone from a distance and pulling the trigger without 'realy' trying to hit them is a much easier impulse decision to make than...

Taking a knife, going up to someone and plunging that knife into their body.


It's simply easier to kill someone with a gun. That's why I believe that opportunistic killings will be much lower if guns are not available.


That being said.. the question becomes: Will a ban on hand guns reduce the ability of a criminal to obtain a weapon?

Yes, I believe it would. The main source of handguns for criminals is not smuggling them over the border. It's from stealing them from legal owners.

By removing them from homes and stores, the criminals will be left with only the one's already out there, and whatever can be smuggled. This would allow law enforcement the ability to reduce the numbers of guns out there by keeping them when they catch them on criminals. And by focusing their efforts on stopping them from coming over the border.

Doing nothing, will do nothing to reduce gun crimes.

Banning hand guns will likely help over a long period of time, along with increased efforts to stop smuggling.

And who is hurt by the ban? Nobody. There is not one single person who is outside the military or outside law enforcement who 'needs' a hand gun.

I have no interest in hearing anything they have to say about their rights to gun ownership. The direct harm caused by the prevalance of guns in society far outwieghs any ideological harm done to those who say it's their right to own one.

[username]

I am Canadian.

It's simply easier to kill someone with a gun. That's why I believe that opportunistic killings will be much lower if guns are not available.

You believe this, but is the belief grounded in fact? Does the data from previous gun control legislation support this belief?


Banning hand guns will likely help over a long period of time, along with increased efforts to stop smuggling.

You believe this, but is the belief grounded in fact? Does the data from previous gun control legislation support this belief?

And who is hurt by the ban? Nobody. There is not one single person who is outside the military or outside law enforcement who 'needs' a hand gun.

I see, you are determining what others 'need'. Are you able and willing to be anywhere a person might 'need' a handgun? If you are not then I suggest you withdraw from the role of determining what others need.

I have no interest in hearing anything they have to say about their rights to gun ownership.

Well then I guess the matter is settled and decided. The mind is closed.

The direct harm caused by the prevalance of guns in society far outwieghs any ideological harm done to those who say it's their right to own one.

If the data supports the idea that violence/murder decreases in response to any particular gun control policy then your opinion might be valid. If the data doesn't support the idea then you are guilty of being an ideologue who isn't interested in hearing anything others have to say.

[Molinaro]

I find the cries for proof that it's easier to kill on impulse with a gun than with another weapon to be laughable.

Has there ever been a drive by knife throwing that kills someone through the wall of a house?

It is easy to suggest a bazillion scenarios where killing with a gun is easier. And I find it laughable to suggest that it is just as easy to physicaly plunge a knife into someone as it is to pull a trigger from a distance. And by easier I don't mean easier physicaly, but rather it is an easier decision to make with far less oportunity to change your mind once the act is begun.

Your cries for proof are going to be given the same level of credence as any woo's cry for proof that god/magic does not exist.


And to take a philisophical objection to my determination of other's people's need to have a gun is absurd. If you cannot give actual real examples of the good that comes from owning a gun, wheras a bazillion example of the harm are present in nearly every news cast.. then I say.. your argument means nothing.

And the matter is closed only in so far as your attempts to make it an issue without specifics. What I have no interest in hearing is people saying "because it's my right" whithout being able to sanely describe any reason that that kind of right should exist. Wheras, reasons against abound down at most big city morgues.

And to conclude by saying that you have to have proof that a change will work before you can actualy try to change anything is acircular argument worthy of any woo.

[Molinaro]

*double post deleted*

[username]

Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya

[luchog]

Has there ever been a drive by knife throwing that kills someone through the wall of a house?
Drive-by shootings are not impulsive.

[Segnosaur]

Pointing a gun at someone from a distance and pulling the trigger without 'realy' trying to hit them is a much easier impulse decision to make than...

Taking a knife, going up to someone and plunging that knife into their body.


Yes, if you have a gun in hand, shooting a person is easier.

But guess what? Gun owners (the type that have their guns legally) have their guns locked up, probably with ammunition located separately. Obtaining a knife can be done simply by walking to a kitchen.

I am Canadian.
The main source of handguns for criminals is not smuggling them over the border. It's from stealing them from legal owners.


Ummmm... you made the claim. Where is your proof?

In fact, I have some proof that you are wrong. From a gun control web site, it states that: Between 1997 and 2000, there were 365 homicides commited with handguns... More than two-thirds (69%) of the handguns were not registered

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/homicide2000.pdf (page 9)

I am Canadian.
Doing nothing, will do nothing to reduce gun crimes.


What makes you think that people opposed to gun confiscation propose "doing nothing"? I myself oppose the Liberal plan; however, I am totally in favour of stronger background checks for those applying for an FAC, stronger penalties for those using guns in a crime, additional police, and better mental health counselling to prevent suicides.

I am Canadian.
And who is hurt by the ban? Nobody.


Actually, there are many people who are 'hurt' by the ban... people who like to shoot competitively, people who collect guns, etc. Your desire to

If your argument is that they are not "hurt" by the ban, then what else would you ban? You know many people drown in backyard swimming pools every year. If you want to cut down on the death rate, you should eliminate those. (And, nobody 'needs' an outdoor swimming pool since we have many public pools around.)

[Molinaro]

Drive-by shootings are not impulsive.

That's my point. They are oportunisticly easy and they have a far greater chance of hurting innocent bystanders compared to just about any other kind of act of violence that occurs with any regularity.

[Molinaro]

But guess what? Gun owners (the type that have their guns legally) have their guns locked up, probably with ammunition located separately. Obtaining a knife can be done simply by walking to a kitchen.



Ummmm... you made the claim. Where is your proof?

In fact, I have some proof that you are wrong. From a gun control web site, it states that: Between 1997 and 2000, there were 365 homicides commited with handguns... More than two-thirds (69%) of the handguns were not registered

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/homicide2000.pdf (page 9)



What makes you think that people opposed to gun confiscation propose "doing nothing"? I myself oppose the Liberal plan; however, I am totally in favour of stronger background checks for those applying for an FAC, stronger penalties for those using guns in a crime, additional police, and better mental health counselling to prevent suicides.



Actually, there are many people who are 'hurt' by the ban... people who like to shoot competitively, people who collect guns, etc. Your desire to

If your argument is that they are not "hurt" by the ban, then what else would you ban? You know many people drown in backyard swimming pools every year. If you want to cut down on the death rate, you should eliminate those. (And, nobody 'needs' an outdoor swimming pool since we have many public pools around.)


1) Then why are so fewer people killed with knives than guns? Seems to indicate that the ease of use of obtaining a knife is greatly offset by the greater conviction required to use one.. compared to carelessly firing off a few bullets without having to 'face' your victim.

2) Just because a gun is not registered says nothing about how it was obtained. Plenty of people had legaly obtained a gun (prior to the registry being law), and then not registered it. Not to mention the fact that since the registry just came out and is widely reported to not have succeeded in getting people to register all the guns thought to be out there. And how many of the guns already in the hands of criminals would have come from people who had time to register them since the registry came out?

3) Target shooters do not have to own a gun. The guns could be owned and kept by the shooting range that allows you to use them. That would make it far easier to ensure the proper storage and protection of the weapons, rather than leaving up to each individual owner.

4) The reference to swimming pools is an absurdity. Once again a pro gun argumenter fails to see the difference between something that has a proper use with an inherant risk of injury or death.. ie swimming pools, vs something who's use is limited to 'killing someone when needed'.

5) A gun collector has no reason to have guns in working condition. Unless of course the real reason for wanting it is to kill someone when needed.

[username]

5) A gun collector has no reason to have guns in working condition. Unless of course the real reason for wanting it is to kill someone when needed.

Is it wrong to want to have something to kill someone with when (if) needed?

[Segnosaur]

1) Then why are so fewer people killed with knives than guns? Seems to indicate that the ease of use of obtaining a knife is greatly offset by the greater conviction required to use one.. compared to carelessly firing off a few bullets without having to 'face' your victim.


The type of people who would 'carelessly fire off a few bullets' are the type of people who would most likely have illegal guns anyways. Any handgun control (banning or registration) would have no effect on them.


2) Just because a gun is not registered says nothing about how it was obtained. Plenty of people had legaly obtained a gun (prior to the registry being law), and then not registered it. Not to mention the fact that since the registry just came out and is widely reported to not have succeeded in getting people to register all the guns thought to be out there. And how many of the guns already in the hands of criminals would have come from people who had time to register them since the registry came out?


Well, we are dealing with HANDGUNS here. (You seem to be confusing the handgun registry with the long gun registry.). We've been registering handguns for, oh, approximately 60 years. Yet over 2/3rds of the handguns used in homicides were not registered. (I doubt that there are many people using pre-world war 2 firearms.)

So much for your "legally obtained but not registered" argument.


3) Target shooters do not have to own a gun. The guns could be owned and kept by the shooting range that allows you to use them.


People shooting competitively may want to visit other shooting ranges. (I wonder how our olympic shooters would like the fact that they couldn't bring their own guns to the Olympics.)


4) The reference to swimming pools is an absurdity. Once again a pro gun argumenter fails to see the difference between something that has a proper use with an inherant risk of injury or death.. ie swimming pools, vs something who's use is limited to 'killing someone when needed'.


The fact that YOU think gun use is limited to killing does not make it so. The VAST majority of legally owned firearms in this country are never aimed at another human being. Assuming that they are owned with the sole purpose of killing is the real absurdity.

Lets see... in the late 1990s, there were approximately 1.2 million handguns in Canada. The murder rate was .23 per 100,000 people. So, that means that approximately .0006% of all handguns were used in homicides. That means that 99.9994% of all guns were not owned by peple who felt the need to kill.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Just like swiming pools, guns have proper uses (e.g. target shooting, hunting) with inherent risks. The difference is, swimming pools tend to cause more deaths. If you are going to ban privately owned firearms, why don't you ban privately owned pools? You'd save more lives, and compliance would be easier. (And the people who want to swim can go to public pools.)


5) A gun collector has no reason to have guns in working condition. Unless of course the real reason for wanting it is to kill someone when needed.

Ummm... no. There are a couple of reasons for wanting a gun in working condition...
- Collectors may also want to be target shooters. The two groups are not mutually exclusive
- Resale value. After all, gun collectors may want to sell firearms to other collectors or target shooters. Disabling them will destroy that value.
- If I were a collector, I'd probably find disabled firearms pointless. After all, why collect them at that point? At that point, they could almost collect toy guns.

[MWare]

This isn't just a self-defense reaction to his recent poll ratings?

[Segnosaur]

This isn't just a self-defense reaction to his recent poll ratings?

Possibly. Of course, the polls have been all over the place since the start of the election.

I admit, there's probably not much chance of the conservatives gaining a majority (their inability to gain seats in Quebec is probably the main cause of that). However, the Liberals may be worried about loosing seats, and proposed the handgun ban in order to prop up their support in mostly urban areas.

[logical muse]

I'm new to this debate, and being from Australia, we don't have a gun culture so it's not an issue we tend to spend much time thinking about. Now, having justified my ignorance, let me weigh in....

Almost no one in Australia has a hand gun. They're illegal apart for uses such as sports and some security professionals.

Some figures for you:

In year 2001, including suicide, homocide, and accidental deaths:
Gun related deaths in the USA: 10.4 per 100,000.
Gun related deaths in Australia: 1.71 per 100,000.

It's more telling to look at the gun-related homicide rates:
USA: 4.1 per 100,000
Australia: 0.24 per 100,000

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html

[Jas]

Banning handguns in Canada is silly...


Seconded. What's the point? The people who will abide by the gun ban, aren't the people who it's targetted at, yet their they will be the ones most affected.

I can't stand the liberals, and I won't vote for them.... Canadians aren't really voting for the liberals, they're voting against the conservatives. And unfortunately, with the exception of Quebec, they're not taking into the other alternatives.

True enough, I vote Conservative, and while I don't agree with a few of their policies, my MP, Jim Prentice, I quite like. One of only two MP's (though that number might be off, to vote for gay marriage.

Although I agree with you (clearly, the rapture is coming), that there aren't many alternatives if you're outside Quebec, and don't like Liberals.

For example, take Canada... since the long-gun registry came into effect, fire-arm deaths have declined. Gun control advocates have almost wet themselves over this news.

I'll google it later, but there are a few reasons, aside from the gun registry, that fire-arm related deaths have declined.

I'm one of those Canadians who is in favour of equal rights for homosexual couples. The Conservative's position on this issue is one of the reasons why I won't vote for them.

Although, I do like that they allowed a free vote on the issue.
I am Canadian.

So am I, and numerous ppl who have posted on this thread.

Pointing a gun at someone from a distance and pulling the trigger without 'realy' trying to hit them is a much easier impulse decision to make than...

Taking a knife, going up to someone and plunging that knife into their body.

Not the way the laws are now. If someone broke into my house, it would be easier, safer, and quicker to stab them, or bludgeon them, than to shoot them (and I have handguns, shotguns, and rifles in my house).

[Segnosaur]

For example, take Canada... since the long-gun registry came into effect, fire-arm deaths have declined. Gun control advocates have almost wet themselves over this news.

I'll google it later, but there are a few reasons, aside from the gun registry, that fire-arm related deaths have declined.


Well, off the top of my head, I can think of one possible reason... as a society, the average age is increasing. And older people are less likely to engage in violent behavior.



I'm one of those Canadians who is in favour of equal rights for homosexual couples. The Conservative's position on this issue is one of the reasons why I won't vote for them.

Although, I do like that they allowed a free vote on the issue.


Actually, it wasn't exactly a free vote... for one, the Liberal cabinet had to vote in favour of C68. (And, for many Liberals, they'd probably view it as a career limiting move to vote against it.)

I still have to wonder though... just what exactly do people have against the conservative concept of 'civil union'. It GIVES them equal rights, just with a different name. Just how exactly is that wrong or bad?

[username]

I still have to wonder though... just what exactly do people have against the conservative concept of 'civil union'. It GIVES them equal rights, just with a different name. Just how exactly is that wrong or bad?

I have to wonder, if it is exactly the same thing, then why is a different word used to describe it? Blacks had the right to go to the bathroom, just not the same bathroom as everyone else. Other than that it was the same thing, what was the problem? Blacks could ride the bus with everyone else, they simply had to sit in the back, but they got to ride the bus like everyone else, what was the problem?

[Jas]

Well, off the top of my head, I can think of one possible reason... as a society, the average age is increasing. And older people are less likely to engage in violent behavior.

There were a few others - more safety awareness, better training, etc.

Actually, it wasn't exactly a free vote... for one, the Liberal cabinet had to vote in favour of C68. (And, for many Liberals, they'd probably view it as a career limiting move to vote against it.)

I might not have made myself entirely clear - the Conservatives allowed a free vote. From my MP's site:

The vote for Conservatives is a free one. Stephen Harper has shown courage and leadership and his position has been very clear to Canadians. It is particularly disappointing that Mr. Martin did not have the strength of leadership to allow his entire Caucus to have a free vote on this issue.

http://www.jimprentice.ca/Documents/Feb2Statement.htm

I rather like my MP, and would say that my vote is probably half for the individual MP, half for the party.

[Segnosaur]

I have to wonder, if it is exactly the same thing, then why is a different word used to describe it? Blacks had the right to go to the bathroom, just not the same bathroom as everyone else. Other than that it was the same thing, what was the problem? Blacks could ride the bus with everyone else, they simply had to sit in the back, but they got to ride the bus like everyone else, what was the problem?

Well, there are a few differences between the situation with black Americans in the mid-20th century and the situation with gay couples who want to use the term 'marriage'...

- Black people may have had many of the same facilities that white people had, but they were often of poorer quality. (And even if they had somehow managed to make 'black' facilities of a quality equal to that of white facilities, it would have been an inconvenience for them to use 'black' facilities in all cases.) A separate legal recognition of gay relationships would not give any less status to their unions. (Well, except among the TRUE bigots, who wouldn't accept gay marriage anyways.)

- From a biological standpoint, the division by race is irrelevant; there's no real genetic difference between people with different skin colour. There IS a difference between 2 males getting married as opposed to a male/female, if for no other reason than their 'hookups' are different.

If you want an anology, you shouldn't compare gay marriage to the plight of black people, you should consider it like "eye colour" on a driver's liscence application; something which doesn't impact the legal ability to drive.

[rudar]

I've never bought the different term nonsense. Seems to me, either the term means something, or it doesn't. If it means something (beyond tab a in slot b), then you're denying gays something meaningful. If it doesn't mean anything, and is just a word, what's the harm in gays using it?

Which basically leaves the third option, which is that gay marriage opponents are so superficial and petty that their sacred and threatened meaning of marriage that they are so quick to defend means, in the final analysis, nothing more than tab-a-in-slot-b. Which I think does far more to erode the meaning of mariage than anything else I can think of.