Hand Gun Ban

[LH]

With the way things are going in Ontario of late and what the polls are reporting out of Quebec, I wouldn't count on that. Conservatives had NO support in Quebec a few months ago and now they are at 26%, so hold on tight.

[Dust Devil]

My point was that when someone makes a statement that is not obviously made based on actually witnessing or living the events and are not backed-up by recorded historical fact, then something else is "at play" then. So I say again, that there is really very little "new history" at all, but just the same old crap that we keep committing over and over again, with a few details changed and some new players on the "program".

Ok let's just throw our hands up in the air and give up!

[shimmydampner]

PSS, Even though some of you don't think the death penalty is a deterent, which I don't understand it's kinda hard to commit a crime from beyond the grave, but anyhoot, trust me, people will be scared of a whipping/flogging/lashing...


PSSS. Funny how "death penalty" isn't a deterent because crime is up in death penalty states, funny how crime is up in Canada too, and we don't have the death penalty either...

Yes, it is hard to commit a crime from beyond the grave, but with that statement you only prove you do not comprehend that definition of the word "deterrent." It is something that delays or prevents an action from occurring in the first place. (On a side note: are you the second coming of Capt'n S&J??)
Interesting you should mention that, however, after the evening of new programs I watched last night. The author of Freakonomics who is an acclaimed statistician/economist was on Hot Type. He addressed that very issue in his book and on the show. Statistics prove that the death penalty is a very ineffective deterrent. Later on (different show) a criminologist was discussing the crime/punishment platforms of the parties, specifically the mandatory minimum sentences proposed by the Conservatives. Mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of their severity, are also ineffective deterrents to crime. That's not to say they should not be in place, but they're not going to solve the problem.

"If consequences dictate my course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught."
--Maynard James Keenan

[justplanecrazy]

Statistics prove that the death penalty is a very ineffective deterrent. Later on (different show) a criminologist was discussing the crime/punishment platforms of the parties, specifically the mandatory minimum sentences proposed by the Conservatives. Mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of their severity, are also ineffective deterrents to crime. That's not to say they should not be in place, but they're not going to solve the problem.

I think the big thing here is that in crimes of passion the severity of the punishment doesn't deter the crime. I think almost all criminologists will agree with that one. When you shoot at someone because he's enraged you, you're not thinking of the consequences. On the other hand, carrying a weapen everyday is not a crime of passion, and if you're not carrying you may be cooled off enough by the time you go back home and get your piece. Also, the reason he is saying that they should be put in place is because rehabilitation for criminals have been proven effective as long as they are put through a full course, which a mandatory min. sentence would allow for. It also does remove them from society for that period of time. With Mandatory Sentences, even if they still commit the crime in the first place, they will still be in prison for 5 years not commiting crime and they have less of a chance of recomitting on exit from prison, given the right treatment programs. I think he's saying that it won't solve the problem by itself and that other things need to be looked at besides throwing people into prison, but that's not to say that we shouldn't impose the min. sentence among other things.

[cyyz]

The author of Freakonomics who is an acclaimed statistician/economist was on Hot Type. He addressed that very issue in his book and on the show. Statistics prove that the death penalty is a very ineffective deterrent.

Mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of their severity, are also ineffective deterrents to crime.

That's not to say they should not be in place, but they're not going to solve the problem.

"If consequences dictate my course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught."
--Maynard James Keenan

Exactly, so if jail time ain't gonna stop someone from shooting another and neither will the death penalty, its safe to assume that a quick bullet to the head of a criminal is the cheapest and MOST effective way to stop crime.

It is something that delays or prevents an action from occurring in the first place.

Exactly, so once you EDUCATE criminals about not being able to get arrested 17 times like our boxing day shooter, they wouldn't be commiting crimes? Obviously you don't understand how the REVOLVING DOOR judicial system works..

You kill someone, you get out and you kill again = NOT DETERRENT

You think about killing someone cause you don't want to get killed but you kill someone anyways, you get killed you don't get to kill another.

The only real deterrent in your obvious definition is something like from Minority Report where they just go and stop it before it happens, and that my friend is called discrimination and racial profiling and a bit hitler/stalin-esq.


And yes I'm a bit CptSweet&Juicy on topics like these... You people always want to have a solution, but the solution you guys conjure up are just so useless and impossible and costly, just go back to friggin basics, arrest him and shoot him on the spot for committing a crime, j-walking snipers bang their dead, fraudsters, bang their dead insurance premiums go down. Speeders, bang they're dead... Got an illegal gun, not anymore cause you're dead...

OH and by the way, statistics show that everyone was living in paranoia under the Gestapo and KGB and guess what, fear of death did deter crime.

You want a safe world you need to give up some of your rights, OR, give more rights to the people, if a ganster HAS a gun I bloody well be able to carry a gun of my own...

Like the idiot in England, two guys went into his house during the night to rob him and he beat the sh8t out of them he went to jail for 1 year and they sued him.... What kind of half-ass backwards world do you people want to live in?

Here, You want to know what the best way of not getting robbed is, go and give your money to the poor, why don't all you scared shits give them your money so they don't rob you so they don't live a life of poverty? Oh wait, you want to keep your money and tax my money and take my gun away from me so they can get a "social program" and still rob me, and if I beat them up they'll get a free operation in the hospital on my coin and go to jail to get more free housing and food on my coin????

Thanks... And "you" as in "people" not refering to "you" you literally....

[shimmydampner]

Exactly, so if jail time ain't gonna stop someone from shooting another and neither will the death penalty, its safe to assume that a quick bullet to the head of a criminal is the cheapest and MOST effective way to stop crime.

Entirely incorrect. It may be the cheapest penalty for crime but it will not stop it. Thinking that punishment is a form of deterrent or a way to eliminate crime is fundamentally flawed. It is punishment, nothing more. It is entirely necessary, I do not dispute that fact. But if you think that punishment is a deterrent to crime think of this. Every time someone commits a crime and is caught and punished it proves that the punishment for that crime is not a deterrent, otherwise the crime would not have been committed. Once again, take the example of the death penalty. Everyone living in a death penalty state knows that if they kill someone they could face the death penalty. Yet every year, people are executed, proving that the threat of death was not a deterrent to their actions. If it was, their would be no more executions in these states because there would be no more murders. That's not to say that extreme punishments would not deter most people from committing some crimes. If the penalty for speeding was a year in prison, most people wouldn't speed. But we all know, there will always be those who break the law because, more often than not, it's easy enough to get away with. Hence my previous quote, "If consequence dictate my course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught." To use punishment as a deterrent is self-defeating because everytime a person is punished, it would only be proof that it doesn't work. That may seem a little too abstract for some, but it doesn't mean that it's not correct.

**This post in no way is meant to insinuate that appropriately strict punishment is not necessary**

[cyyz]

Once again, take the example of the death penalty. Everyone living in a death penalty state knows that if they kill someone they could face the death penalty. Yet every year, people are executed, proving that the threat of death was not a deterrent to their actions. If it was, their would be no more executions in these states because there would be no more murders.

But is it not possible that the criminals ARE scared of the death penalty, but have things that CALM them? Like say, legal defense? Which takes years, and with 1 wrong move by the cops the case is thrown out.

If you are convicted and are fortunate to get the death penalty, which is lucky, because death penalty states don't carry it as a MINIMUM sentence, so criminals are still banking on the fact they won't get it. Anyways, they get it and what happens, death row, 10+ years of appeals and even at the very last moment a criminal who has cost the legal system millions in housing and judicial "due process" still has that one chance of redemption he can get his clemency, and some of these guys may have begged 3-4 governors for clemency over their stay on death row, and they know all it takes is one governor and they can be reduced to life...

I'll agree with you that the fear of death isn't instilled in people so they commit crime. But if you made a legal system that really really catered the death penalty, just recently 3 "thugs" robbed an 80 year old, well I'm sure they wouldn't be so darring if they knew that once caught they'd be killed, regardless if it was the "others boys idea, and they just tagged along."

If you had 1 minimum and 1 maximum sentence and it was Immediate DEATH, people would wake up, people wouldn't rush out and do careless things. No more appeals, no more trials, no more chances, just death. No more weasling your way out of a murder/drug charge with "oh they caught me only because of racial profiling, they caught me, but they didn't dot the I and cross the Ts." No more excuses.

Crime would go down, because many many many criminals would just be dead, being a member of a gang, instant death, 1000's of Hell's Angels would be killed, right there, 100's of those guys were probably doing something illegal, not anymore, you've just reduced crime...

Once the pathetic criminals are killed you're left with people that commit crimes of passion("postal") they were gonna do something regardless of society "caring about them."

and the really really really, deep mob/organized crimesters, and again, you'd just need to infiltrate their network and kill them all to, so it would just be a hunt for them.

You could even give nice little "educational" demonstrations in school, since schools don't go on field trips to prison to see what it's like, you could now drag a gang-banger to a grade 6-8 class and show the kids, see what happens when you join a gang and you blow his brains right out in front of the class/school and the kids will see what it's like to die they'll know what's in store for them if they shop lift or steal or fight or join a gang.

and we should be giving out $1000 dollar rewards to people who snitch out gun owners, drug dealers brothel runners/pimps, whores etc. And we just kill the criminal.

[justplanecrazy]

Just when you thought the discussions were getting more realistic. No appeal process, bullet to the head right away. Hmmmm... I definately can't see any possible wrongful death suit there.

[cyyz]

I definately can't see any possible wrongful death suit there.

As mentioned, we'd give up some of our freedoms to have a better and safer society... "The lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few", not "it's better to let 9 criminals go free so one "innocent" man isn't convicted" and as we've noticed, we just usually let the guilty ones go, milgaard sat.

And if you think giving up your rights/freedoms is bad, guess what, sorta, giving up the right to have a gun is a freedom/right being taken away from you, and I'd be much happier knowing that a bunch of criminals will die for my lost rights.. =)

[Dust Devil]

I definately can't see any possible wrongful death suit there.

As mentioned, we'd give up some of our freedoms to have a better and safer society... "The lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few", not "it's better to let 9 criminals go free so one "innocent" man isn't convicted" and as we've noticed, we just usually let the guilty ones go, milgaard sat.

And if you think giving up your rights/freedoms is bad, guess what, sorta, giving up the right to have a gun is a freedom/right being taken away from you, and I'd be much happier knowing that a bunch of criminals will die for my lost rights.. =)

Sorry man but I gotta say this. I'm against the gun registry and all but gun ownership is not a right. The only rights you have are those in the charter and it says nothing about guns. I still think the registry is a load of crap though

[cyyz]

Sorry man but I gotta say this. I'm against the gun registry and all but gun ownership is not a right. The only rights you have are those in the charter and it says nothing about guns. I still think the registry is a load of crap though

But they're going to start using the gun registry now, they're gonna go to those peoples homes and arrest them if they don't turn in their guns once they ban all guns.

[Dust Devil]

Sorry man but I gotta say this. I'm against the gun registry and all but gun ownership is not a right. The only rights you have are those in the charter and it says nothing about guns. I still think the registry is a load of crap though

But they're going to start using the gun registry now, they're gonna go to those peoples homes and arrest them if they don't turn in their guns once they ban all guns.

Ya probably. but I'm just saying that you don't have the "right" to own a gun.

[LH]

I trust and hope that there aren't Canadians out there that still believe that there aren't millions of rifles owned by decent Canadians that haven't been registered . Those that are "clued-out" use statements in reply to that idea like....."Yeah, there may well be, but they can't buy ammo for them and can't go hunting then". Oh really? In my old Detachment which we all knew very well and totalled 50,000 folks, we estimated that there were approximately at least 35,000-40,000 rifles and/or shotguns. You go hunting with these folks and get the gut feeling over time about the population of firearms. Most familes were rural and lots had 4-7 rifles and/or shotguns.........and 4,512 have EVER been registered in the Detachment area as of present. People just smile at coffee shops etc. whenever the subject of longarm registration is brought up. There are 6 Members now in that area and they are going to check all the houses and out-buildings of that many people? Sure thing Paul, they'll get-on that right away.

The "fools" in Ottawa never had a clue how many rifles there were in Canada BEFORE they made the law and they still don't have a clue. Then to prove their stupidity, they make statements like..."we estimate that there are now approximately 400,000 rifles not registered in Canada". They don't have a clue how many rifles and shotgums were obtained LEGALLY in Canada since 1894 and they're going to try to get control of the ILLEGAL weapons that are obtained without licenses, registrations and receipts? Okay Ottawa, whatever you say.

[Doc]

Some party said they would scrap the gun registry? They have my vote. I just dont think it's worth two thirds of the gross national product of Cuba, to find Farmer Jone's 1956 single shot twelve guage? Maybe some of you do? Then you are a morons! And really, I dont give a shit how many rifles and shotguns there really are in "Bum Phuque" Sask.....because Guido, the gangbanger wouldn't use them anyway! Toronto...get over yourselves!

[Guido]

Some party said they would scrap the gun registry? They have my vote. I just dont think it's worth two thirds of the gross national product of Cuba, to find Farmer Jone's 1956 single shot twelve guage? Maybe some of you do? Then you are a morons! And really, I dont give a shit how many rifles and shotguns there really are in "Bum Phuque" Sask.....because Guido, the gangbanger wouldn't use them anyway! Toronto...get over yourselves!

Indeed, I'm a much bigger fan of slingshots than shotguns...

[Jim N]

Lepine used a Ruger Mini-14, a 5.56mm rifle, not a handgun. The only restriction placed on it since the massacre was the 5 round magazine limit, and having to have it registered. Numerous other guns, which looked scary but weren't used in crimes, were restricted or prohibited.

If you look at the Coronors report Lepine modified his rifle which make it a jam-o-matic instead of full auto. He had to cycle the action manually for each shot- effectively a bolt action. Mag capacity was not an issue in his case, yet it was used to push mag cap. limits. The same is being done today- lawful owners are not the problem but are being touted as the cure by Martin

[2R]

I do hope LH is going to use his wisdom and help choose the next government.
Your vote Counts
The polls are open have at em

[swede]

Lepine used a Ruger Mini-14, a 5.56mm rifle, not a handgun. lawful owners are not the problem but are being touted as the cure by Martin

Yeah, and everyone wants to blame Lepine for C-68. He was just the impetus for it, the anti - gun activists went nuts with this cause celebre, specifically, the rabid militant feminist crowd, who had a number of their lot plowed down by Lepine because the gutless QPP would not do what they were trained for. I once had the misfortune of speaking to the raving ideologue Wendy Cukier, trying to convince her of how ineffective gun control is, is about as productive as stuffing sand up your ass.

[hazatude]

Swede...you and I disagree on a lot of things. The fact that you and Wendy Suckier were an item at one time though, has put me right over the edge!

[Chantal]

Guess this means all you gun owners will not vote liberal?

[Seafury]

I just started on here and did not read all of the posts. This topic is important to me and I appretiate how candid you all are. Here is my experience.

The Liberals have a 100 yr plan to disarm Canadians. Since 1978 restrictions on firearm ownership have gradually been brought in. In 1998 my converted FN rifle (semi auto now) became prohibited because it was once select fire (auto/semi auto). A semi auto FN is just restricted. That includes the Canadian, British and Austrailian versions. I can't own the semiauto version, I'm not in that category. Thats not logical.

The requirements placed on me were safe storage (thats sensible) and having to aquire a permit for each day I wanted to shoot it. A pain in the ass but no big deal. Several months ago I recieved a letter stating that I could no longer take this rifle and shoot it legaly, however I could still get a permit to take it to the gunsmith for repair if I needed to. I can also buy others in this category.

A Why repair a gun you are not allowed to shoot?

B I still have it and it works so why ban the legitimate use of it?

Nothing is stopping me from drilling the pop rivets out of my 5 rnd magazines, making them 20 rnd mags and going hunting downtown.
I will not do that because I am a middle aged law abiding citizen who can be trusted to own this firearm. I have for 16 yrs.

As for handguns they will not be banned and siezed. No lawfully obtained property has ever been siezed in our history and the cost of purchasing them all would be huge. The same thing will happen. They will be grandfathered and after a few yrs we will all get letters telling us we can no longer shoot them (legally). That would not keep any of us from misusing them if we had a mind to.

In the United States despite the fanfare over the Brady bill all 50 states have adopted concealed carry laws. Some resisted at first but it was hard to ignore the fact that violent crime went down by over 50% in the states that adopted it immediately. The permit is not easy to get but I have no problem with normal law abiding citizens having handguns on their person. You can carry a sidearm in Montana and everyone is really polite there.

Meanwhile Menudo and the backstreet boys will be packing illegal firearms anyway.

Choose your Canada

[Seafury]

Guess this means all you gun owners will not vote liberal?

Chantal, this is not the only reason anyone with a fully functional brain would not vote Liberal. It does say a lot about their "Father knows best" attitude towards us and the Liberal "hidden agenda" of total control.

[Seafury]

Sorry man but I gotta say this. I'm against the gun registry and all but gun ownership is not a right. The only rights you have are those in the charter and it says nothing about guns. I still think the registry is a load of crap though

But they're going to start using the gun registry now, they're gonna go to those peoples homes and arrest them if they don't turn in their guns once they ban all guns.

Ya probably. but I'm just saying that you don't have the "right" to own a gun.

Think its interesting that you use Nelson Mandella as your Avitar when he was convicted of possesing firearms for use in terrorist activities. He should still be in jail in my opinion.

Actually a very strong argument can be made that we do have a right to bear arms. My understanding is that the NFA prepared a legal argument that because we do not deal with this issue in the charter of rights it falls back to English common law which specifically states individuals have the right to own firearms. Others feel this is why nobody has been charged under the new laws. The government fears they might be defeated. That would be embarrasing. 2 billion dollars wasted on unconstitutional laws.

Before the turn of the century homesteaders were given surplus Snyder rifles to protect themselves in this country.Canada has a very long relationship with the firearm. The Liberals claim there are 7 million in Canada but real estimates are over 25 million giving us the highest number per capita than any country in the world.

[Wilbur]

"Common Law" doesn't specifically state anything; it's unwritten.

The NRA/NFA are every bit as nuts as the radical women's movement who is behind these moronic gun ban laws. Both group are delusional with fear. The NRA/NFA fears big brother government wants to take their guns so they can be enslaved, boogie men will break into their homes at any moment to kill their families, so they need their guns to defend themselves. The radical women's movement fears men as violent monsters just awaiting the opportunity to get their hands on a gun to massacre females. Both views are absurd.

People don't need guns for self defence, and women are not at risk from men. We are all at a very minimal risk from a few violent criminals. Laws of any type do not apply to criminals, in the view of the criminals. Never have and never will; that is what makes them "outlaws."

[Hedley]

People don't need guns for self defence

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking, lefty? It must be some GOOD stuff!

Bad governments and criminals have something in common: they both strongly prefer an unarmed populace to prey on.

If you're too stupid to understand that, well, there's probably a reason why you're unemployable in the private sector (shrug)