Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Why Can't We Ban Guns?

If you are in Toronto, you no doubt recognise Efraim Brown. He sadly is the latest victim of gun crime in this city. If you aren't familiar with him, he was 11 and caught in the crossfire of two rival gangs. Toronto Police within 2 days, have arrested the two that they believe were responsible.
The mayor and the premier, have asked the Federal Government, once again, to ban handguns. I understand that Quebec and one other province is also considering this action. As expected, the government has refused to consider this and of course goes on to bash the Senate and the Liberals.
So, aside from the obvious, (playing to their base), why are they so dismissive?
Banning handguns obviously isn't going to end gun violence, but given that half, (48% actually) of the guns used on our streets are stolen from gun owners, isn't it a step in the right direction? That coupled with work on the border and co-operation from the US, surely would be a start?
Obviously, there are social issues and programs to consider and they too are important and are going forward here anyway, with some success.
Who, in this country needs a hand gun?
I can only conclude, that in order to preserve their base, the Conservatives are content not to do everything that can be done, to prevent more violence.
This is not only insane, it's immoral, imo.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

KNB:
Hi everyone from Florida i know i'm still on vacation,but i found a library with internet so i don't have much time. I need to answer this article of yours KNB I first would like to say
that my heartfelt sympathies goes to the boys family and friends and class mates.

Now banning hadguns would have done nothing to prevent what happened
in Toronto. We are talking about street gangs here they don't go to the local Canadian tire store and buy it legally like good honest Canadians would. Personally i don't like guns anyways i would like to make that clear. I only wish that you would get off your high horse
and stop saying that there playing to their base everytime they do something that you don't like. What do you think your doing when you say this? Your not playing to your base? C'mon please hu!

In Australia they did ban handguns and it did nothing to curve the violence there. Just listen to the radio station in Sydney www.2gb.com and you will hear what is going on there.

You wrote a article
about 2 weeks ago that said that violence was down and now because you personally don't like hadguns ban them. Why don't you talk about the
bills that has been stalled in the unelected dominated liberal senate?

Your guy Dion when he was part of the goverment
why diddn't they ban it hello? The liberal goverment of Ontario your province has just told your Mayor to fix the problems by raising taxes. Don't you relize that it would be almost imposible to inforce this? Because if it was the Liberal goverment with Dion they would have all ready done it when they were in power !!

John
P.S. People when you have something to say about anything please sign the article so we all know who we are all talking to
just like i do i'm not afraid to speak my mind
that's why i always sign it.

Oldschool said...

Guns and logic

Those nescient libs who think that crime is a ”gun problem”. Using this logic, one may conclude that black leather gloves cause stabbings, matches cause arson, vehicles cause wrecks, cameras cause pornography, swimsuits cause drowning, cigarette lighters cause cancer, wine glasses cause alcoholism, spoons cause obesity, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, ad nauseum …

Had “philosopher and historian” libs pursued a Ph.D., they might have come across these words from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD ”Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. “ (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the criminal use of firearms declined as the number of states issuing concealed-carry permits increased. Yale researcher John Lott addressed the relationship between gun possession and crime, and summed up his research with the title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime.

The relationship between victimization and the ability to defend oneself is timeless. In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”


We have had rigorous handgun restrictions since the 30 . . . . don't you think its time we got tough with criminals . . . in canada . . . NOW!


This describes the lefties perfectly . . .
"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem."
-- G. K. Chesterton

knb said...

John...you're addicted, ;)

You've missed my point though. Half, a full half of guns used in these crimes, are stolen from owners. Why do they own them in the first place?

Who needs these guns?

Who are you protecting by opposing a ban?

I will agree with you that there are, in Quebec, supporters of Harper who do not support guns. You're not the base I refer to.

My post weeks ago did speak to crime being down, it still is. I don't remember suggesting that guns were good.

The bills are stalled because there is overwhelming evidence, that the laws being pushed, do not work.

Your guy Dion when he was part of the goverment
why diddn't they ban it hello?


They were going to, if you recall, but they were defeated. It would be the law of the land had they won.

Perhaps this gorgeous little boy would still be alive, perhaps not. We'll find out if the gun's used were stolen.

If so, I invite you to explain your stance to his Mom.

Oldschool said...

Perhaps its time to get tough one the criminals . . . that steal guns . . . is that too tough a concept for you?? Blaming an inanimate object for a person's behavious and actions is "brain-dead" . . . criminals do crimes, including murder, whether it be a gun or baseball . . . so what do the lefties in TO do . . . . lock up the baseball bats, ban the guns and let the criminals run free!!!

Ever read a history book? Here's a couple of interesting quotes!!!


1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future! --Adolf Hitler

Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. --Sarah Brady

I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns. --Senator Howard Metzenbaum

Scott Tribe said...

Thats pretty rich Oldschool - throwing an Adolf Hitler quote in there. It's also a red herring.

All current Western democracies in Europe have a form of gun control - are they under threat of tyranny?

knb said...

oldschool, chiding me on my knowledge will get you no where, let alone make your point.

The ridiculous argument you put forth, blaming objects over users, ...bah, ridiculous!

My argument is the access to the weapon of choice, not the object.

Tell me, please, who needs them and why?

Yale researcher John Lott addressed the relationship between gun possession and crime, and summed up his research with the title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime.

That is absolute BS...look at the stat's man.

Are you a gun owner that believes in his God Given right?

If you are, you are part of the problem that killed that beautiful child.

Anonymous said...

KNB

" John...you're addicted, ;)" I'm sorry to say but i think you're addicted. I may not be able to answer you untill next week when i get back home,boy is it ever hot here in Miami with the humidex in the 40's. I'll give you proof that you're guy
Dion the Liberals did nothing to ban handguns when they had the chance .

1) This is a minority
goverment if they were serious they would have done something. Example
on opposition day that they have in parliament,
they could have present
a private members bill
or a motion then the Liberals,Block and the NDP all 3 parties form
a majority in parliament.
They could have put it to
a vote and pass with flying colors if the block and ndp would go along with it i don't see
why they wouldn't they think alike.Then go to the senate and viola case closed it would now be the law of the land.But they diddn't do it did they thank you very much and this is the proof.

John

red canuck said...

Oldschool - Give it a rest. Do handguns serve any purpose other than to injure or kill other people? Your comparisons (eg "spoons cause obesity") are so assinine, it's hard to believe.

Oh and regarding John Lott, according to Wikipedia, "the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found that "there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime."

Not to mention that he was running around citing data from phantom 'studies' he conducted (when challenged, he claimed a bookcase had fallen on his computer causing him to lose his data). And that he admitted to sock-puppeting online.

Quite a credible source.

Steve V said...

The Conservatives LOVE to tout their support for the brave police force. Unlike the dirty Liberals, Harper's crew is in tune with the needs of law enforcement. Why then, aren't they taking the advice of said heroes on gun issues??????

wilson said...

'Tell me, please, who needs them and why?'

Knb, I know you are passionate about this subject, for all the right reasons.

Please consider this question, carefully:
Do you think that the GOVERNMENT should have the right to take personal property away from law abiding citizens?

Once you go down that road, where does it stop?
Who needs a dog and why?

wilson said...

'Half, a full half of guns used in these crimes, are stolen from owners.'

So, the GOVERNMENT confiscates a law abiding citizen's personal property, just in case, someone were to steal it, and use it in a crime.

Stolen Creditcards bankroll many gangs/groups criminal activities.
Ban creditcards?

ottlib said...

wilson:

For years gun control opponents have been arguing that banning guns is not the answer because then you would have to ban other weapons like knives, baseball bats and wet noodles.

Now some of you are taking it to new levels. Credit cards?

It just shows that gun control opponents are realizing that they are losing this argument.

This shooting, the shooting of Miss Creba, Dawsons College and Virgina Tech is causing opinion to shift towards more gun control not less. Hell, polls consistantly show that Canadians still support the National Long Gun Registry despite the bad AG report on its finances and the unrelenting campaign the Conservative Party and its anti-gun controls allies have been waging against it. Which, of course, is why we still have the Registry.

It is just a matter of time before we do see a ban on handguns. However, it will probably not come from the Federal government at first. I believe it will begin with a province, namely Quebec.

As an aside, it will be really interesting to see how the Harper government reacts to a proposal, originating in Quebec City, to ban handguns.

Hmmm, piss off you base or the voters you need to win a majority? Decisions, decisions.

knb said...

Do you think that the GOVERNMENT should have the right to take personal property away from law abiding citizens?

Yes, if that property is deemed illegal to own. Just add it to the existing list: fully automatic, converted and semi--automatic assault weapons.

Owning a weapon is not a right and there is no logical reason for a citizen to own a hand gun.

wilson said...

I suggested a provincial ban, and was told the Criminal Code is for the Feds only to change.

Does Toronto have a curfew?
Our town of 70k does, put in place to stop a vandalism increase.

Can Toronto cops randomly search a suspicious vehicle without a warrant? If not, why not?
Nab the illegal guns right out of the gangs hands.

Civil rights and liberties you say?
If you want to take away civilian rights, take away the rights of the gangs, not the law abiding citizens.

How is closing down a gunclub in Saskatchewan going stop a Saturday night drive by shooting in Toronto?
Or a suicide in BC, or a domestic shooting in Calgary?

Get a grip on the gangs, give the police more rights for search and seizure.

knb said...

ottlib, that indeed would be an interesting situation.

ottlib said...

wilson asks:

"Do you think that the GOVERNMENT should have the right to take personal property away from law abiding citizens?"

They already do.

Let's say a 60 year old man who has never had any run ins with the law is pulled over and a cop sees a few grams of pot on the front seat. He is arrested and his pot is taken away from him and never returned even if he is never convicted.

Why did this happen? Simple. The state says that possession of pot is against the law and therefore if you are found with it you will have it taken away never to be returned.

So what is the difference between that 60 year old man with the pot and the same 60 year old man with a pistol?

The state says the pot is illegal but not the gun.

However, neither is set in stone and it looks like the two pieces of "property" will switch places in the not too distant future.

ottlib said...

"If you want to take away civilian rights, take away the rights of the gangs, not the law abiding citizens."

Gun ownership is not a right in Canada. We do not have an equivelent of a Second Amendment in our Constitution, thankfully.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. Indeed, it was invented to kill humans in time of war and early firearms were useless for other uses like hunting because they were hopelessly inaccurate. A man with a crossbow was more likely to bag the dear over the guy with a musket.

As an aside, during the Battle of Waterloo, Wellington and his staff were riding from one part of the battlefield to another when they passed about 150 metres in front of one of the battalions in his army. Wellington had a couple of dozen aides with him and the battalion took that group of horseman to be enemy cavalry. So they fired a musket volley at the group of horsemen, which just happened to include their army commander. That was five hundred muskets firing at a target 150 metres to the front. Not a single man or horse in Wellington's party was even touched. 500 men shot and 500 men missed. So just imagine trying to shoot a dear at three hundred metres with just a single musket.

Of course, since then firearms have become more advanced and they are now used to kill other creatures besided humans, but their primary purpose is still to kill.

I have no problem with hunting. Hell, I have a freezer full of moose and venison and that freezer will be refilled with more this fall.

However, I do have a problem with handguns because they are useless as tools for hunting but they are extremely useful and efficient at killing humans.

I have a great deal of sympathy for gun owners because I have family and friends who use them to hunt and I even have friends who do competitive target pistol shooting.

I still have problems with an outright ban because I do not think it will work. Observe how effective is a ban on illegal drugs. However, something must be done to reduce the carnage on our city streets and part of the solution will inevitably be much greater restriction on the access and use of handguns by all Canadians.

Gayle said...

"We have had rigorous handgun restrictions since the 30 . . . . don't you think its time we got tough with criminals . . . in canada . . . NOW!"

You know it is funny when people like you use (flawed) studies to justify your stance that a gun ban will not work, and yet you completely ignore the numerous studies that show higher sentences do NOT reduce crime, and only serve to increase the costs of administering justice - a cost that is borne by the taxpayers.

Here is a fact - gun crime in this country went down after the liberals created the gun registry. That does not mean one thing lead to the other, but it might.

Here is another fact - if handguns are banned, that would reduce the market would it not? Gun manufacturers, having a smaller market, would make fewer guns.

Obviously this would be more effective if we could get the Americans on board, but I think the point is valid.

knb said...

You know it is funny when people like you use (flawed) studies to justify your stance that a gun ban will not work, and yet you completely ignore the numerous studies that show higher sentences do NOT reduce crime,

Applause!