Hand Gun Ban

[justplanecrazy]

double

[justplanecrazy]

LH that applies when you want to search someone who's walking down the street and you haven't witnessed them do anything wrong. How many times do the police take these kids down with a warrant for their arrest on some unrelated charge, or for committing some petty crime. When they do they often find handguns on them but those charges never make it anywhere. With min. sentencing, the police have an opportunity to lock up a violant individual but with the leeway in sentencing the penalty is nil.

With all do respect LH, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have a lot more situations where they are able to detain and search an individual without a warrent then the RCMP do in smaller towns. There are always crimes being commited in these neighborhoods and witnessing a kid with drugs in plain view, is not uncommon. I know many police officers that are very pissed that when they take down some of these kids for petty crimes like doing drugs, they find handguns. They can charge these guys but nothing ever becomes of it, and its not because the judge determines that the search took place without reasonable grounds, its because there is no minimum sentencing. If you talk to the police and ask them what they could use to help stop this rash of gun violance, their answer will often be min. sentencing and never Gun Control.

On January 3, 2003, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino said in a news release: "We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

Toronto Police budget in 2003 was $634 million . The cost of the gun registry was $2 billion. Imagine the task force you could create to crack down on gun violance and the social programs you could put in place with $2 billion dollars.

[grimey]

LH that applies when you want to search someone who's walking down the street and you haven't witnessed them do anything wrong. How many times do the police take these kids down with a warrant for their arrest on some unrelated charge, or for committing some petty crime. When they do they often find handguns on them but those charges never make it anywhere. With min. sentencing, the police have an opportunity to lock up a violant individual but with the leeway in sentencing the penalty is nil.

But in those cases they have grounds for a search, and they're simply not enforcing the law, for whatever reason. They're already breaking the law and facing charges, and it's an issue of the courts not pursuing charges or not giving the sentences they could give. Anyone using a firearm in the comission of a crime can already be sentenced to 14 years (minimum 1 year), they can get 10 years for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and 5 years for carrying a concealed weapon.

One side effect of minimum sentences could also be the cops being unwilling to charge people with as many crimes, because they don't want to see some 17 year old locked up for 10 years for making one bad decision, when he didn't actually hurt anyone. That's another reason that pot just gets tossed, the cops figure the pothead is an otherwise good kid, and nothing would be served by putting them through the courts and into the prison system. This would be less of an issue with firearms offences, though.

I still want all of these gang members locked up for the maximums, rather than get let loose on bail after 24 hours, though.

Toronto Police budget in 2003 was $634 million . The cost of the gun registry was $2 billion. Imagine the task force you could create to crack down on gun violance and the social programs you could put in place with $2 billion dollars.

Agreed.

[justplanecrazy]

c.c. 88 (1) Possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose -
Punishment - Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictabe offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

c.c. 90 (1) Carrying concealed weapon - (2) Punishment (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

c.c. 91 (1) Unauthorized possession of a firearm - (3) Punishment (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years: or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

These are the sections that need to have minimum sentencing when the weapon involved is a handgun. All three of these sections allow the judge to apply a summary conviction, which entails a fine of not more than $2000 or imprisonment up to 6 months or both. These are the types of Sentences being handed out, not 10 years or 5 years or anywhere near the maximum. If the issue is the courts not pursuing the law or handing out the the appropriate sentences then wouldn't min. sentencing solve the problem?

What section is "using a firearm in the commision of a crime"? I can't find it.

[grimey]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42061.html#section-85

Using firearm in commission of offence

85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent -- firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.

Using imitation firearm in commission of offence


(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence,

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

Punishment


(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;

(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and

(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.

Sentences to be served consecutively


(4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 85; 1995, c. 39, s. 139; 2003, c. 8, s. 3.

[grimey]

These are the sections that need to have minimum sentencing when the weapon involved is a handgun. All three of these sections allow the judge to apply a summary conviction, which entails a fine of not more than $2000 or imprisonment up to 6 months or both. These are the types of Sentences being handed out, not 10 years or 5 years or anywhere near the maximum. If the issue is the courts not pursuing the law or handing out the the appropriate sentences then wouldn't min. sentencing solve the problem?

Possibly, but like I said, it could also result in the charges being bargained down, or not pressed in the first place, because the judges involved arn't willing to impose a harsh sentence, or the cops being unwilling to charge them with a crime that will lead to a serious sentence. Are the judges imposing the most lenient sentence possible because the feel it matches the crime, or are they imposing it because they don't want the guy to be fucked for life with a long sentence?

And just so that there's no confusion, I'm not saying that I don't want harsher sentencing for those convicted of violent crimes, I simply don't think that it will reduce the crime rate, or possibly even get more of these guys off the street. I think the solution lies in social programs to remove the idea that gangs are the only choice for kids in low income areas, and new laws that allow the cops to go after the gangs themselves as a criminal entity, rather than going after individual members only after they've committed serious crimes.

[LH]

Let's stop right here and understand something. The police lay charges AFTER consultation with a Crown Attorney and if they lay those charges on their own, then they can expect to have their knuckles rapped unless it is for a very minor charge. The public often misunderstands this and come down hard on police for the charges not being laid or the type of charge that is laid. "Yes' the police lay the charges, BUT not on their own and not without consultation and the okay of those who will prosecute those charges in court. The various Attorney Generals' Departments look at the possibility of conviction on a charge, who the legal counsel is for the defense, who will prosecute against this possibly skilled opponent and the legalities of ALL evidence collected. Let someone admit their guilt to an offense BEFORE they are "Mirandized" and it IS NOT admissable in ANY court in North America.........no matter how heinous the crime. THAT is why part of the statement reads EXACTLY..."and anything you do say can be taken down and used as evidence against you............".

The Crown Attorneys will go after the so-called "big charges" or what are considered the most serious and drop the rest of the so-called inconsequential ones. If someone is murdered then the charge gone after would be 1st or 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. If a weapon is involved, then that charge will be used as a "bargaining chip" for the moment when the Defense attempts a plea bargain. It is then a "give and take" compromise and they drop that charge if it will get the suspect to admit to a lesser charge and shorten the length of the trial. Like all other things in this world, money and costs are at play and the cost of a lengthy trial is horrendous to the government purse. They want the justice, but they also want "the bang for their buck" and that's why the dropping of weapons charges for starters.........because they are considered the lesser of the two charges in that situation. Is that right or not?........well it sure isn't, but that's the "real world" and that's what we have to deal with and have for eons and eons.

MY point on the above is that THAT charge should not be allowed to be bargained away and the Judge should be allowed no recourse but to apply a given sentence........and I believe that should be 10 years.

The quote has been issued about Mrs. Trudeau's charges against her being thrown out of court. IF that policeman was a Member of the RCMP when I was in the Force and his speedometer had not been certified, he would have been brought up on internal charges in the RCMP Service Court after the court ruling. There was NO excuse for that whatsoever and what happened is EXACTLY what should have happened no matter how high her profile was.......because that got shit to do with it. The comment has also been made about the differences with policing in a rural setting vs the urban setting for the RCMP. Pardon the pun, but that's a "cop-out" because they ALL receive the EXACT same training and operate by the EXACT same rules. That "rural setting: can also be a town or city of up to 60,000, so "rural" is a relative term only.

Bottom line here folks is that new laws are not needed at all except to lengthen the term of the sentences upon conviction for a weapons charge. ...............AND THEN ENFORCE THE DAMN LAW. If you ain't going to do that much, then all you're doing is "blowing hot air" and you know who is laughing at you. IF and WHEN the perps that did the shooting in TO are caught, tried and found guilty, EACH one of the 15 should receive a MINIMUM sentence of 10 years. Scare others? Maybe "Yes" and maybe "No"........that would be great, but the bottom line would be that those 15 are gone from our presence and off the streets of TO for a decade. They dom it again when they get out, then DOUBLE the same sentence the next time.........DOUBLE THAT for the third weapons offense. Do it three times and well send your Old Age Pension cheque to the prison.

We want to get serious, then let's get serious or shut the hell up and quit belly-aching. same rule would apply to those out hunting once a year, but I suspect very strongly that you'd find a lot more punks in prison for that offense than deer hunters.

[justplanecrazy]

That's exactly right, and if the crown attorney has a charge that is easily proven, with a min. sentence, they will choose to apply it. Also, on a serious charge like aggravated assault, at present it doesn't provide much of a bargaining chip to threaten to add using a firearm in the commision of an offence. The defence knows that the kid won't get anything for that charge but if a min. sentence gaurantees the possibility of another 10 years, then it will provide the prosecution with a lot more power.

If a punk kid is seen smoking dope and a search turns up a handgun, the kid should get jail time. If there were 5 year min. sentences on carrying a firearm and 10 years for using one in the commision of an offence, he would. This would provide deterence against carrying. Carrying a handgun is similar to speeding. It is not a crime of passion and harsh penalties will deter kids from doing it. I'm not saying it will stop gangs from forming, that's what social programs are for. It will definately make the kids think twice about carrying one on an ordinary day when they're not expecting trouble.

[LH]

I don't really care if it makes them think ONCE..........you do it.......your GONE from our presence for not 5, but 10 years. There will ALWAYS be gangs, unemployment, drugs, acsohol and divorce. I'm tired of people being intimidated, killed and robbed because some poor unfortunate feels that being part of the foregoing gives them "special license' to use that as an excuse. It's been stated already by people in-the-know, that the total number of people involved in the gangs in TO probably number no more than 100-200. Even if that number is 500, there are 4.1M people in the GTA by last count. So what we have is 100-500 people scaring and terrorizing the shit outta over 4M people. It's time for the population to wake-up and say "fix the problem NOW or there's enough of us to do it for you.........AND you don't have big enough prisons to hold us all. We're mad as Hell and we ain't takin' any more". I wonder how the parents of Jane Creba (the girl that was killed) would feel about that statement tonite?

[Dust Devil]

I remember when I was a kid my dad bought me a .22 for $10 and let me and my buddy go down in the valley and shoot gophers. No one ever even came close to being hurt. I bet if a couple of 10 year olds tried that now they would have the SWAT team and army out in full force.

And this wasn't back in the 40's it was in the 80's (I'm not that old)

[justplanecrazy]

LH, you should care. If one of them thinks that the punishment is to stiff to risk carrying, then that's one less kid on the street with a gun.

Toronto Police estimate a total of 80 gangs operating in Toronto with approximately 2,000 youths involved at various levels. Only a small percentage of these gang members are described as "hard core" by the police.

So I imagine that you are refering to the 100-200 hardcore people who are actually pulling the trigger. To throw someone in the slammer for 10 years at a cost of $400,000 to the public each for just carrying a handgun is a bit much. Five years is stiff enough for someone to realise that its not worth it and ten for using it in an offence will put the non-posers away for long enough to retire them when combined with their offence sentence. To put 200 16 year olds in the slammer for 10 years and then let them go at 26 will do nothing but change the number of violent crimes for young adults. They'll come out twice as bad and twice as smart. Then what do you do with them, throw them back in for another 50 years at a cost of $2 Million dollars each? And before you start saying to stop serving them prime rib, giving them t.v. etc, those costs are as high as they are because of buildings and security not a fancy prison lifestyle. Getting tough on crime by giving long prison sentences, just delays the next criminal act and doesn't deal with the problem, just the symptoms.

Sentence these kids for 5 years, put them in a facility that is designed for them specifically. Not to punish them, but to try and figure out why they joined a gang and how to get them to work past it with education, skills etc. All they've done at that point is carried a firearm and they haven't killed anyone yet. Put social programs in place in the hoods with direct consultations with the juvenile detention centers. To say that they are violent people that can't be helped, is a self fulfilling destiny.

I've seen work camps and youth prisons first hand where all sorts of violant juveniles have served time. Given the right atmosphere, these places can really change their lives. Some of the camps have the lowest recidivism rates of any detention facility. That is something when you consider that these kids are youths and are at an age where they can go clean or go real wrong for the next 50 years.

[justplanecrazy]

dp.

[Doc]

You know, you guys can go back and forth till the cows come home, or Hell freezes over. The simple truth of the matter is: Until somebody has the balls to put some "teeth" into the laws, we're stuck with them as they are today. It still boggles my mind that the government spent four times the operating budget of the entire metro Toronto Police Force registering legally owned firearms! If Toronto still votes Liberal, they deserve the government they get! Enjoy another four years of swinging at windmills!

[Wilbur]

Some people, Liberals and lefties most often, like to float the cost of prisoner keep as a reason for incarcerating fewer people and for shorter times. However, they never consider the cost of not incarcerating these people.

Consider the costs of the crimes, and of maintianing these scumbags in the community. What is the value of damaged and stolen property, insurance claims, insurance premiums, medical costs for treating victims, time lost from work by victims, security guards and alarm systems, policing costs, court costs, legal aid for the scum bags, welfare, drug treatment programs, counsellors, social workers, community programs, etc. None of this includes the psycho-social impact on victims and the community at large.

These gang members and other chronic repeat offenders each cost our society millions before they are either murdered, overdose, get sent to prison for long sentences, or finally grow-up and quit their criminal lifestyles. We could save ourselves a fortune by going back to a habitual criminal law. On your third or fourth indictable offence conviction you get a mandatory life sentence without parole. Could some be rehabilitated if we did not impose a life sentence, sure, buy so what. They choose their life of crime, and they choose to quit doing crimes. Make the obviously wrong choice and you suffer the consequences.

The cost of keep for those doing life without parole can be significantly decreased. They won't need counselors or rehabilitation programs because they will never be released, they don't need gymnasiums, tennis courts and golf courses in their prisons, nor colour TVs, and hobby shops. No, a 6X10 plain concrete box and three bowels of gruel with boiled meatloaf will suit their needs just fine. You could lower the cost of keeping them in prison to a couple thousand a year, and they would never again be victimizing anyone.

But of course, the Liberals will never do anything to really crack down on crime. Crime provides too many opportunities for buying votes with gun bans, promises to set up community programs, more services for immigrants, etc, etc.

[justplanecrazy]

Sorry Doc. I already spent four years swinging at windmills and ended up with a degree in this crap. I had the same attitude as LH before I started the program, and after four years came out with a different outlook. I guess that's why I've been rambling, cause I want everyone to see what Uni showed me with the pro's and con's of different systems.

Before you label me as someone who thinks they're smarter than anyone because of a piece of paper on the wall, just remember that I spent four years studying this specific subject. I don't know the answer but 4 years of studying this has definatley shown me that too many reactions are based on emotion and not the simple objective of limiting crime. I'll look at someone who has served for years on the force in these problem areas, as knowing more than the average citizen as well.

The problem is that the reaction from the public is either similar to what it is now where the courts say, poor kids, they can't help it lets not punish them. Or the reaction is damn kids they deserve to all be killed. When the Gov. starts playing with our emotions to buy votes, rather than listening to experts opinions on what will and won't work and educating the public, that in itself is criminal and should not be tolerated. I guess it's just a touchy subject for me, especially when someone like JCT who has spent all of 10 min. thinking about this subject, tells me I'm arrogant for acting like I might know a little more than him regarding this.

You're right, the way things are now, we're helpless at combating crime. But in the same way throwing everyone who has done anything wrong in their life into prison and throwing away the key is an equally wrong reaction as the US has proven. I think the Conservatives are taking a step in the right direction but more needs to be done in the neighborhoods giving birth to these problems and the juvenile system dealing with those already victim to their surroundings.

[LH]

justplanecrazy ------ I've attended university also and obtained two degrees. That and a $1.75 will get me a "double, double" at Tim Horton's in my hamlet. One thing they don't teach in university is how you walk up the front walkway of a home, knock on the door and meet two older people to tell them that their only child has just been murdered. First you do that and THEN you speak or teach about it at universities and if/when you have all the answers to the correct and intelligent thing to say, you let me know..........and one Hell of a lot of other policeman of present and the past who had to do that many times. Wanna feel like a "piece if shit" that knows nothing, then try that first and explain that to some university classroom. I'll tell you in advance..........you won't be able to put it into words......and you won't be concerned one bit about the "rehabilitation" of some "scuzz-bag, low-life" murderer.

I DO NOT give a "tinker's dam" about the welfare of people who have committed a violent crime OR their rehabiulitation while in prison. They committed the most heinous of crimes against society and they are there to get them out of our presence so that they can't further hurt anyone. I don't care if that is considered punishment or anything else and if they learn other bad things while in prison, then the next time they are caught, that just gets them even more time. Hell, we can arrange it like California and give everyone like that "3 cracks" at committing offenses and then "you're now a full-time resident of "the Crow Bar Hotel" sir". Cost? Talk about cost to the parents of the two girls Karla Homulka murdered. Talk about costs to the parents of the 23 + women and girls that Robert Picton is believed to have killed in BC. Have a few ideas on costs when you talk to the parents of the girl killed in TO some nights ago. Learn what you wish in university about the ways things SHOULD be done "on paper" and then take those ideas out and then "walk the walk" and then you can "talk the talk". If you and others are concerned about COSTS, then tell me and let others know how many dollars worth of "justice" you want. I will strongly suggest to you that right now many Canadians want to pay a high price for "justice" because of recent events. Wait awhile until the recent stories get placed on Page 10 of the local newspapers and that price they are willing to pay will decrase greatly, specially if it takes money away from the National HealthCare Program.

Design it whatever way you want, but what I want is for ANYBODY with the "balls" to start a gunbattle on a busy Canadian downtown street filled with adults and children to be sent from our presence to prison for a long, long time. You and others apparently are concerned about what they learn in there and whether they come out worse. Sorry sir, but if someone murders my daughter, I do not want you to tell me that that person got 8 years for doing so, will be out on parole in 1 year ( mandatory1/8th of the sentence) and that I might even meet them while getting my car repaired. .........and they didn't even get charged with firing a weapon on a crowded city street filled with babies, kids and adults. That may not work-out tto well in some university classroom, but how many of those Profs or students have made that walk up to the front door at 10Pm at night?

[justplanecrazy]

I think you've made it pretty obvious that your solution is based on emotion then. You're all about retribution, which is one way to look at it.

If you really didn't want to walk up to the door and tell someone that their son is dead wouldn't you want to focus on what actually limits criminal activity rather than a little payback? No punishment in our justice system will bring back someones loved one but it may be able to prevent taking another one.

You want to get some kid to spend 10 years for having a gun on him even though he's never used it? Sending him to the pen for 10 years will make him into the man that he needs to be to be able to use that gun. When he gets out, he will use it. If you read my post then you would see that I'm in favor of 10 year min. for using a firearm in the commision of an offence. If someone has proven that they're an animal, like homolka, they should be locked up and the key thrown away. On the other hand how many stupid things did you do at 16 that could have resulted in the death of someone. And how many times did your parents take control of your life before it sprialled out of control. If I had grown up in that neighborhood, with parents like theirs, I'd probably be packing by 16 too.

[just clearing the trees]

You want to get some kid to spend 10 years for having a gun on him even though he's never used it? Sending him to the pen for 10 years will make him into the man that he needs to be to be able to use that gun. When he gets out, he will use it. If you read my post then you would see that I'm in favor of 10 year min. for using a firearm in the commision of an offence. If someone has proven that they're an animal, like homolka, they should be locked up and the key thrown away. On the other hand how many stupid things did you do at 16 that could have resulted in the death of someone. And how many times did your parents take control of your life before it sprialled out of control. If I had grown up in that neighborhood, with parents like theirs, I'd probably be packing by 16 too.

Hey did hell just freeze over? I agree 100 per cent. I sincerely hope it's the start of a new trend for us.

Governments shouldn't ignore the need to implement programs that provide kids in these neighbourhoods with hope and an alternative to gangs and violence. How about some trades training in/for under-priviledged neighbourhoods? Hope and a decent, respectable job.

[LH]

justplanecrazy ------- you are either dyslexic or my syntax is really bad, so I'll do it simple this time for you:

1) IF someone commits a violent crime with a handgun (illegally obtained or not) and a human being dies or is threatened with it, then they should get 10 years, IF they happen to be 16 or older. IF that person is under 16, then they should do 5 years in some correctional facility, another 5 under probation when they get out AND a further lifetime ban on owning any weapon of ANY description.

2) Emotion? No it's not about emotion at all. It's based on my wife being a teacher, me being a policeman one time and my daughter presently being a Federal Parole Officer. So like the farmer, we've seen the "seed planted, seen it grow and seen what happens to iti".

3) At NO TIME have i suggested that any kid be given a sentence of 10 years for just carrying a gun. I'm directing this whole point at those who decide that shooting-up places like Yonge St. at high noon is nothing to be afraid of, don't respect the law or anyone else and take an innocent life in doing so. What happens to them upon their entry into prison I could not care less about. For those that do, you have now got the "fruits of your labour" to prove how well they work.

4) I didn't have a "rap sheet" with 25 charges against me by the time I was 16 and I made lots of mistakes, but I know of plenty who did. How many times is a 14-16 year old supposed to be allowed to use a knife on someone before he "does time as guest of the taxpayer?" Why are we afraid to draw a distinct "line in the sand?"Why are all those that have never had that knock on the front door some evening or had to wipe blood off of the clothes always the ones with all or most of the answers? Being born poor, missing a dad, mother's a prostitute, in with the wrong crowd, etc. gives nobody the license to end another innocent person's life on Main St, Canada on some afternoon of their liking.

The difference between you and me is plain. Youi constantly refer to what happens to people after they are in prison, what they will become and "My God, we can't do that to some young person and maybe not even older ones. Read me well: If they can get a license to drive a 3000 pound weapon (an auto) at 16, enter the military to kill at age 18 and walk and chew gum at the same time, then they also qualify for prison. I want them out of society and what happens to them for taking a life I DO NOT CARE and I'm not even thinking of the word "Punishment". I'm only thinking of the word "GONE".

[justplanecrazy]

LH I must have missed the posts where you said 5 years all I saw was 10. I think we're both basically arguing the same thing but I think it's important that you keep the goal of the police, laws, courts, prison, parole, etc. to stop crime from occuring and not exact revenge. Right now there is no prevention, no punishment, nothing and it has to change.

Did you hear about the US's attempt to curve gun violence in the bad neighborhoods of LA? I think they may have even one upped the Liberals on this one. They were offering $100 for every gun turned in by citizens from these parts. So all of these punks are walking up with old, broken, useless handguns, shotguns rifles etc. and walking away with a clean crisp $100 bill to invest towards the latest Glock or S&W. They really thought that one through.

[Doc]

planecrazy and clearing the trees.....simple question. Handgun ban..yes, or, no??

[cyyz]

planecrazy and clearing the trees.....simple question. Handgun ban..yes, or, no??

Legislation - No.

Everyones gun being beamed away - Yes.

[just clearing the trees]

planecrazy and clearing the trees.....simple question. Handgun ban..yes, or, no??

Same as every other time I tried to make it clear to everyone, I'd say no. I don't agree with it, it would be ineffective. I personally don't have any use for a handgun. Simply hunting rifles and shotguns are all I need. But hey, who am I (and who is the government for that matter) to tell respectable, responsible, law-abiding citizens that they can't own one. Different strokes for different folks. I say no to the ban.

The only time I ever feel any desire to own a handgun is when I watch Snatch and Bullet-tooth Tony does his speech in the bar about the "Desert Eagle........point 5-0." What a hand-cannon!!

[LH]

justplanecrazy -------the 5 year statement I added and you didn't miss it. I added it only because I was directing my statements at those that use them in a violent crime and you had obviously misunderstood me.....so I enlarged on that thought.

Again, we keep beating the hell out of the "revenge" idea or the "punishment" idea or the "deterence idea". We can't seem to make a statement concerning this problem without those mindsets. I'm not interested in ANY of those at all.........I simply want a danger to the populace put away where they can't hurt that populace and I want that time to reflect the seriousnous with which we regard that crime. No longer do i want to hear about some home invasion against some elderly couple where weapons are used and one finds out later that the perpetrators had a "non-served" record as long as your forearm and still only get 6 months. Since time held in custody for trial is worth 2 times the time held in custody, they get out on the street right away even if found guilty. TEN years minmum for using that weapon FIRST and THEN we try them for the home invasion. Let them "chew on THAT" for 10 years. Meanwhile, no home invasions by THAT crew for a decade. Do it again when you get out and next time we double that 10 years and make it 20. I all depends on how serious you are and if you aren't THAT serious, then don't expect very serious attention to your law on handguns and killing people with them.

[LH]

justplanecrazy -------the 5 year statement I added and you didn't miss it. I added it only because I was directing my statements at those that use them in a violent crime and you had obviously misunderstood me.....so I enlarged on that thought.

Again, we keep beating the hell out of the "revenge" idea or the "punishment" idea or the "deterence idea". We can't seem to make a statement concerning this problem without those mindsets. I'm not interested in ANY of those at all.........I simply want a danger to the populace put away where they can't hurt that populace and I want that time to reflect the seriousnous with which we regard that crime. No longer do i want to hear about some home invasion against some elderly couple where weapons are used and one finds out later that the perpetrators had a "non-served" record as long as your forearm and still only get 6 months. Since time held in custody for trial is worth 2 times the time held in custody, they get out on the street right away even if found guilty. TEN years minmum for using that weapon FIRST and THEN we try them for the home invasion. Let them "chew on THAT" for 10 years. Meanwhile, no home invasions by THAT crew for a decade because for 10 years they are not free to roam amongst any of us.