NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051208/ca_pr_on_na/fedelxn_liberals_handguns

Was reading about a Liberal Party plan to ban handguns, with exceptions to collectors, competitive shooters, and law enforcement - and I was scratching my head, because I thought that handguns were already severely restricted in Canada.

Seems that there's a problem with inner city crime and murder, and someone wants to make an announcement that they've solved the problem or have the solution in hand.

And then the NDP spoke up...

Windsor MP Joe Comartin, the New Democratic Party's justice critic, said the announcement sounds like "smoke and mirrors."

"Basically, all handguns in Canada are illegal now," said Comartin. "The only people who get permits are those who are using them for recreational purposes or those who need it for their own personal safety and there's not a lot of those that are granted."

He said the announcement sounds like "a political ploy during an election to garner some headlines and make it look like you're actually doing something when, in fact, what you're proposing is pretty meaningless."

Poor, poor Canucks. Alas, they use to be such a nice Country. Sigh! :(

Poor, poor Canucks. Alas, they use to be such a nice Country. Sigh! :(

I think you're missing the point. For near on 60 years, they've already had these restrictions.

Someone getting up and announcing that they'll now make some handgun restrictions is like getting up and saying you're going to outlaw rape and hope that no one notices it's already against the law.

I think you're missing the point. For near on 60 years, they've already had these restrictions.

Someone getting up and announcing that they'll now make some handgun restrictions is like getting up and saying you're going to outlaw rape and hope that no one notices it's already against the law.
I got it, thanks. I was just commenting on the sorry depths to which our Northern neighbor has descended. What a shame. :(

I got it, thanks. I was just commenting on the sorry depths to which our Northern neighbor has descended. What a shame. :(

It's just like politicians everywhere, Eut. They're all pretty much the same.

It's just like politicians everywhere, Eut. They're all pretty much the same.
True. Sad, but true. What a depressing thought this early in the morning! :headbang:

What I want is a person who supports either the NDP or Liberal Party in Canada to post their views on this matter.

What I want is a person who supports either the NDP or Liberal Party in Canada to post their views on this matter.

It's still kinda early over there, isn't it?:confused:

It's still kinda early over there, isn't it?:confused:
9:30 AM local time in Toronto...

I got it, thanks. I was just commenting on the sorry depths to which our Northern neighbor has descended. What a shame. :(

I find this interpretation extremely bizarre, in what manner is Canada’s gun policy indicative of some social or political decline? Are your saying that Canadian society is declining or its politics? Our politics have been this way for a while, much like every other democracy. Moreover, our gun policy is a tiny element of Canada. To suggest that it constitutes some greater part of our society is a fallacy of composition.

I find this interpretation extremely bizarre, in what manner is Canada’s gun policy indicative of some social or political decline? Are your saying that Canadian society is declining or its politics? Our politics have been this way for a while, much like every other democracy. Moreover, our gun policy is a tiny element of Canada, to suggest otherwise is a fallacy of composition.

No, you don't get the thread, or you haven't read it.

We in the States know that you have essentially had a handgun ban for 60 years. Very few people can get a permit to own one. You have to be a competitive shooter, collector, or law enforcement - i.e., the government has to agree you have a legitimate need.

Now here comes the Liberal Party, and says they're going to pass a law to restrict handguns - and they'll make sure that only a competitive shooter, collector, or law enforcement can get to own one.

That has to be one of the stupidest things we've heard out of Canada - and that's what we're dismayed about.

Gee, it started with total registration, quite a while ago, didn't it? So, only those law abiding citizens who actually registered thier firearms will be affected. Criminals, (oddly enough, defined as those who break the law) will just laugh.
Ah, then they will just blame the US again...
Registration equlas confiscation, proven over and over again.

Again, in what manner does this hollow political gesture during an election suggest a greater social and political decent in Canada. Seemingly, this is what Eutrusca suggested with comments such as…


Poor, poor Canucks. Alas, they use to be such a nice Country. Sigh! :(

and

I got it, thanks. I was just commenting on the sorry depths to which our Northern neighbor has descended. What a shame. :(

I'm not commenting on the policy, I'm talking about the bizarre generalization.

Again, in what manner does this hollow political gesture during an election suggest a greater social and political decent in Canada.

We hear so much about how Canada is far more civilized than the US - and then we hear a Canadian party actually express an idiotic idea - an idea as idiotic as if they had said, "And if elected, we'll pass a law to make murder illegal!"

Gee, it started with total registration, quite a while ago, didn't it? So, only those law abiding citizens who actually registered thier firearms will be affected. Criminals, (oddly enough, defined as those who break the law) will just laugh.
Ah, then they will just blame the US again...
Registration equlas confiscation, proven over and over again.

But there are degrees of criminality. Some people will break minor laws but not big ones like murder.

We hear so much about how Canada is far more civilized than the US - and then we hear a Canadian party actually express an idiotic idea - an idea as idiotic as if they had said, "And if elected, we'll pass a law to make murder illegal!"

Everyone's shit stinks, anyone who says otherwise is probably lying to themselves. But relative to the other turds out there, this is inconsequential. Moreover, how is one redundant statement of policy negate the value of Canadian civilization?

We hear so much about how Canada is far more civilized than the US - and then we hear a Canadian party actually express an idiotic idea - an idea as idiotic as if they had said, "And if elected, we'll pass a law to make murder illegal!"

Did you even READ the article?


Currently, handguns in Canada are classified as either restricted or prohibited weapons.

Canadians can receive a licence to own a restricted weapon if they can prove it's part of a gun collection or used for target practice or target-shooting competitions. They can also be granted licences to use the firearm under "limited circumstances," such as in the role of a police officer.

Advocates of gun control were reserving judgement to see exactly what Martin would propose.



So yes, there certainly IS still room to tighten up handgun legislation if that is the desire of the government.

There is rather less room for your specious comparison to murder :rolleyes:

Did you even READ the article?

So yes, there certainly IS still room to tighten up handgun legislation if that is the desire of the government.

There is rather less room for your specious comparison to murder :rolleyes:

Yes, I read the article.

So did the NDP, who apparently AGREE with me that it's a ridiculous, do-nothing law that won't restrict a damn thing.

I think you're missing the point. For near on 60 years, they've already had these restrictions.

Someone getting up and announcing that they'll now make some handgun restrictions is like getting up and saying you're going to outlaw rape and hope that no one notices it's already against the law.
Yeah, that's kind of cute...it was a real WTF moment for us too...I first heard about this when I was visiting my parents, and we kind of looked at each other like "um...you can't get handguns now can you?".

I got it, thanks. I was just commenting on the sorry depths to which our Northern neighbor has descended. What a shame. :(
Because we ban handguns? Oh no! We must be dissolute and evil! What if you found out we ate less spam than USians? Would we sink to further depths?

Yes, I read the article.

So did the NDP, who apparently AGREE with me that it's a ridiculous, do-nothing law that won't restrict a damn thing.

Well nice of you to think so highly of the opinion of our most liberal party, however to put this story in the proper context:

"Newsflash, During the election campaign one party made a policy statement. this statement was immediately decried by the others as being useless, ineffective, and/or wasteful without even seeing the proposed text of a bill".


Or, if you read the whole thing:

Privately, one Liberal insider admitted the move is aimed at creating a wedge issue that will flush out the Conservatives on the issue of gun control.

"It absolutely is a wedge issue. There's no other way to describe it," the insider said.

"It's about making a very clear delineation between what they (the Conservatives) stand for and what we do. . . . We believe in gun control and they clearly don't."


In other words, this may well be nothing more than setting the table for a debate designed to polarize the electorate. In other words, basic political strategy.

That has to be one of the stupidest things we've heard out of Canada - and that's what we're dismayed about.
Gloating about you mean.

Another rant about "'x' country is always saying they're better than us, so I'm going to pick out something stupid they've done (not shortage of that in any country's politics, so should be easy) and then pretend that I'm just bringing it up because I'm so sad that this country isn't as wonderful as they say they are, with the hope that people will realise how great the US is after all".

You should cut these down to just two or three a week maybe, for maximum impact.

Yes, I read the article.

So did the NDP, who apparently AGREE with me that it's a ridiculous, do-nothing law that won't restrict a damn thing.
Which is the job of an opposition party...to oppose.

Gloating about you mean.

Another rant about "'x' country is always saying they're better than us, so I'm going to pick out something stupid they've done (not shortage of that in any country's politics, so should be easy) and then pretend that I'm just bringing it up because I'm so sad that this country isn't as wonderful as they say they are, with the hope that people will realise how great the US is after all".

You should cut these down to just two or three a week maybe, for maximum impact.

I try to limit a Canadian moonbat moment to one a week.

But, I have a limit of as many EU moonbat moments as there are EU nations.

What I want is a person who supports either the NDP or Liberal Party in Canada to post their views on this matter.

I support the NDP. Actually, I'm on the fence between the NDP and voting Green. But most likely, I'm going to vote NDP.

Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051208/ca_pr_on_na/fedelxn_liberals_handguns

"Given the number of stolen guns used in crime, Comartin said there had been some discussion earlier this year at the all-party Commons justice committee about tightening regulations governing safe storage and use of handguns. But that is something that falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Comartin said the one thing the federal government could do would be to stop the flow of illegal firearms into Canada from the United States."

I have to agree with this statement. Earlier this summer, a gun collector's house was robbed in my community. 43 pistols, 2 rifles, and about 3,000 rounds of ammunition were stolen from some one's house. The man was eventually caught, but only 2 hand guns were recovered. That means some where out there, 41 criminals are armed with handguns. 2 more criminals have rifles. I can't say I really feel comfortable with this.

I would support an all-out ban on hanguns, and any other type of projectile weapon. There is absolutely no need for guns in our country. None. Only three people should have guns. Cops, Aboriginal hunters that depend on them to feed themselves, and the Armed Forces. We have no need for guns in our society. As for the illegal weapons comming in from the U.S., that's something that should be addressed by the Prime Minister and the President. If the U.S. wasn't so gun-crazy, none of these guns would get across the boarder in the first place. But they are, and those guns are killing our citizens. Again, there is no reason why any citizen of the Dominion of Canada should be armed.

I would welcome a sweeping gun ban, but I'm not voting liberal. Liberals have had almost a quarter of a century in power in this country, and it's time for some serious change.

I would welcome a sweeping gun ban, but I'm not voting liberal. Liberals have had almost a quarter of a century in power in this country, and it's time for some serious change.

Weren't the Liberals the ones who put in that registration scheme that blew up in their face to the tune of over one billion dollars (Canadian)?

Weren't the Liberals the ones who put in that registration scheme that blew up in their face to the tune of over one billion dollars (Canadian)?

Yes, that would be the Liberals. Just about any thing done in this country in the last 25 years has been at the hand of the Liberals.

I try to limit a Canadian moonbat moment to one a week.

But, I have a limit of as many EU moonbat moments as there are EU nations.
I wouldn't even want to try to tally up the number of political stupidities going on in one day on this earth, to try to determine which nation is the nuttiest...

It was actually a great move by Paul Martin. I am from Toronto and I must say that gun violence is a big problem here. I am personally not a liberal supporter but welcome this announcement!

It was actually a great move by Paul Martin. I am from Toronto and I must say that gun violence is a big problem here. I am personally not a liberal supporter but welcome this announcement!

I guess it's a matter of perception. I keep hearing that Canada probably has bigger problems than gun violence, and that gun ownership in Canada is already sharply restricted (and has been for some time).

I would support an all-out ban on hanguns, and any other type of projectile weapon. There is absolutely no need for guns in our country. None.
God, I was all set for a jump down your throat until:

Only three people should have guns. Cops, Aboriginal hunters that depend on them to feed themselves, and the Armed Forces.
Except for three things:

1) Canadians are never going to let aboriginals be the only armed civilians. Think about it.

and

2) It's not just aboriginals who depend on hunting for their food. Plenty of non-aboriginals in rural or northern areas do as well.

3) Again, in rural and northern areas, guns, rifles specifically, ARE needed for protection against animals. Even if you go out into the bush for non-hunting purposes (berry picking even) you need a gun.

We have no need for guns in our society. Our society is not homogenous. There may be no need for guns in urban centres, but that does not apply to rural areas, isolated communities, and wildnerness, which make up the vast majority of our land.

As for the illegal weapons comming in from the U.S., that's something that should be addressed by the Prime Minister and the President. If the U.S. wasn't so gun-crazy, none of these guns would get across the boarder in the first place. But they are, and those guns are killing our citizens. Again, there is no reason why any citizen of the Dominion of Canada should be armed. We need to address the issue of demand in Canada as well. You're doing the equivalent of blaming Colombia for cocaine use in Canada. There does need to be a more concerted effort to get illegal guns off the streets, and stop them from crossing the border...but we can't go nuts about it and start blaming everything on the US. For one, it's not going to get us anywhere...what, are we going to launch a 'war on guns'? Look how 'effective' the war on drugs is...do we really want to get into something like that?

Limit guns within reason...by requiring they be locked up, with the ammunition stored separately (as is currently the case), that gun owners take a basic firearms safety course, and that handguns be restricted (I don't give a shit if you can hunt with some of them...we can do just fine with rifles).

We hear so much about how Canada is far more civilized than the US - and then we hear a Canadian party actually express an idiotic idea - an idea as idiotic as if they had said, "And if elected, we'll pass a law to make murder illegal!"

Just because you my friend are too stupid to realize that going from "gee some people are allowed handguns" (for target practice and shit) to "no civilians will have guns, and those caught with handguns will face stiffer penalties" is a marked legal difference, doesn't mean the statement is stupid - just you.

Now I gotta say that this is actually a pretty savy political move by the Liberals - it makes them look tougher on crime and gun violence... so anyone objecting to it will look like they are less tough on crime and gun violence. Plus you know those tools from the NRA are going to get involved again now, and anyone supporting them or being endorsed by them will be the kiss-o-death politically (well except for the far right nuttos from the former Alliance).

Weren't the Liberals the ones who put in that registration scheme that blew up in their face to the tune of over one billion dollars (Canadian)?
Isn't it two now?

It's been so poorly managed, it's laughable. I can't even imagine how much of that money has gone 'missing'...

I would welcome a sweeping gun ban, but I'm not voting liberal. Liberals have had almost a quarter of a century in power in this country, and it's time for some serious change.[/QUOTE]

Since they've been in power for so long, any admission that anything at all is a problem is an admission of failure, especially if the problem has been ongoing for the whole time.

What do you think?

Just because you my friend are too stupid to realize that going from "gee some people are allowed handguns" (for target practice and shit) to "no civilians will have guns, and those caught with handguns will face stiffer penalties" is a marked legal difference, doesn't mean the statement is stupid - just you. Keep the personal attacks to yourself. Flaming will only get you modsmacked. Surely you can say this in a way that doesn't directly insult the poster?

Since they've been in power for so long, any admission that anything at all is a problem is an admission of failure, especially if the problem has been ongoing for the whole time.

What do you think?
Actually, that was an oops on my part...that wasn't what I said, I just didn't quote Nuclear Industries properly. I would NOT welcome a sweeping gun ban.

Edit: something's going wonky with the quotes...I've had to edit this twice for some reason.

Isn't it two now?

It's been so poorly managed, it's laughable. I can't even imagine how much of that money has gone 'missing'...

And there's the point to those who still don't get it, the Liberals "got tough on crime" to the tune of $2B and it has had no effect whatsoever. Now they're making more noises in order to appear "tougher on crime" so they don't get thwacked at the polls.

Reminds me of Kerry's "hunting" photoshoots during '04.

Since they've been in power for so long, any admission that anything at all is a problem is an admission of failure, especially if the problem has been ongoing for the whole time.

What do you think?

First, I think that equating the Martin leadership to that of Chretien is disengenuous.

And Second, I should point out that it has been largely in the past two years or less that gun violence has been on the upswing due to the emergence of a great number of illegally imported weapons to urban areas from the US. The fact that the trend seems to be new but continuing makes this a current problem, not a historical one.

Just because you my friend are too stupid to realize that going from "gee some people are allowed handguns" (for target practice and shit) to "no civilians will have guns, and those caught with handguns will face stiffer penalties" is a marked legal difference, doesn't mean the statement is stupid - just you.

Now I gotta say that this is actually a pretty savy political move by the Liberals - it makes them look tougher on crime and gun violence... so anyone objecting to it will look like they are less tough on crime and gun violence. Plus you know those tools from the NRA are going to get involved again now, and anyone supporting them or being endorsed by them will be the kiss-o-death politically (well except for the far right nuttos from the former Alliance).

The new proposed legislation has exemptions for the same people who have exemptions now - competitive shooters, collectors, etc.

It is in essence no change at all - according to the NDP. Not according to me.

And there's the point to those who still don't get it, the Liberals "got tough on crime" to the tune of $2B and it has had no effect whatsoever. Now they're making more noises in order to appear "tougher on crime" so they don't get thwacked at the polls.

Reminds me of Kerry's "hunting" photoshoots during '04.
I'd prefer they spent the $2 billion on the people who actually know anything about crime...by beefing up the police for starters. Paying for a comprehensive system linking federal and municipal law enforcement...which only exists in a patchwork system right now...so some murderer's fingerprints are in one system, but not another. Fuck political posturing...if they want to do something about crime, quit gutting the damn system.

First, I think that equating the Martin leadership to that of Chretien is disengenuous.

And Second, I should point out that it has been largely in the past two years or less that gun violence has been on the upswing due to the emergence of a great number of illegally imported weapons to urban areas from the US. The fact that the trend seems to be new but continuing makes this a current problem, not a historical one.

So you're now stating that the restrictions on Canadian citizens have not reduced crime.

The new proposed legislation has exemptions for the same people who have exemptions now - competitive shooters, collectors, etc.

It is in essence no change at all - according to the NDP. Not according to me.
The details have not yet been released on this proposal, however...this is all speculation. We don't know what they are planning to do.

First, I think that equating the Martin leadership to that of Chretien is disengenuous.

And Second, I should point out that it has been largely in the past two years or less that gun violence has been on the upswing due to the emergence of a great number of illegally imported weapons to urban areas from the US. The fact that the trend seems to be new but continuing makes this a current problem, not a historical one.

Usually, an upswing in gun violence is indicative of an underlying social problem that is entirely unrelated to guns. The US "war on drugs" for example, is the reason that black on black gun violence is slightly more than half of all gun violence and gun murder - otherwise, our plummeting gun violence rate amongst non-blacks would put us in the same gun violence category as Switzerland - or better. It's indicative of an underlying social problem.

Sounds like you have an inner city violence problem that comes from some social problem. Rather than spending 2 billion on a failed registration program, perhaps that money would have been better spent on social issues in the inner cities and poor rural areas.

I guess it's a matter of perception. I keep hearing that Canada probably has bigger problems than gun violence, and that gun ownership in Canada is already sharply restricted (and has been for some time).

Well of course we have bigger problems than gun violence, most countries have bigger problems than gun violence. But it is a problem, and that problem needs a solution. What that solution is, how it's going to be implemented and enforced... Those are questions that our government will have to address. Personally, I think a an all-out ban on guns is a good thing. There is no reason to have guns. If no one has guns, then you don't need a gun to 'protect' yourself. Though, to be honest, I havn't seen too many gun (actually none) battles in my life that one would claim to need protection from.

But there is one factor we have to accept: Criminals will not, and do not, obey the law. No matter how hard we try, what we do to stop, prevent, and punish gun violence, there are individuals who, regardless of what the law is, will do what ever they please. This is why I'm not voting Liberal just because they said they'd implement something that probably isn't going to do much of anything. Liberals do that alot.

So you're now stating that the restrictions on Canadian citizens have not reduced crime.
Just as this 'society' is not homogenous, neither are its crimes. Just because there has been an upswing in crime in one area, does not mean that all gun crime has increased, nor can you say that this upswing in crime is directly caused by registration. So....?

I'd prefer they spent the $2 billion on the people who actually know anything about crime...by beefing up the police for starters. Paying for a comprehensive system linking federal and municipal law enforcement...which only exists in a patchwork system right now...so some murderer's fingerprints are in one system, but not another. Fuck political posturing...if they want to do something about crime, quit gutting the damn system.

I agree fully. I forget the name of the politician up there, but he crunched some numbers on how many police, border patrol, and/or social programs that could have been funded w/ that money.

There is no reason to have guns. If no one has guns, then you don't need a gun to 'protect' yourself.

Maybe in Canada. Here in the US, if you're attacked, it is likely that your attacker will have no weapon at all. The mere presence of a firearm in the hands of the intended victim is usually enough to stop an attack - without firing a shot.

But the US is not Canada, and vice versa. Whatever you want in Canada.

But I do note that you spent billions on gun registration, and your gun crime problem is, by your admission, still growing.

Sounds like you have an inner city violence problem that comes from some social problem. Rather than spending 2 billion on a failed registration program, perhaps that money would have been better spent on social issues in the inner cities and poor rural areas.
Perhaps so...but which is more politically expedient? People lobbied for gun control...the poverty groups lobbying for social change doesn't have as much pull...because just like in the US, many Canadians believe poverty is an issue of individual weakness.

Just as this 'society' is not homogenous, neither are its crimes. Just because there has been an upswing in crime in one area, does not mean that all gun crime has increased, nor can you say that this upswing in crime is directly caused by registration. So....?

I don't. I don't claim that ownership directly leads to a drop in crime. I also don't claim that restrictions lead to a drop (or a rise) in crime. I oppose restrictions on LAC's because all it does is lead to more reductions in rights.

If no one has guns, then you don't need a gun to 'protect' yourself. Though, to be honest, I havn't seen too many gun (actually none) battles in my life that one would claim to need protection from. Not many Canadians, at least in Western Canada, (that includes the Territories) think you need guns to protect yourself from people. Generally, it's wildlife we're worried about...and getting rid of all guns is not going to address that issue...unless you want us all to stay in our houses?

But there is one factor we have to accept: Criminals will not, and do not, obey the law. No matter how hard we try, what we do to stop, prevent, and punish gun violence, there are individuals who, regardless of what the law is, will do what ever they please. This is why I'm not voting Liberal just because they said they'd implement something that probably isn't going to do much of anything. Liberals do that alot.
Politicians in general do that a lot...I hate the lot of them. I don't care if I'm wasting my vote...if there's a Green candidate...hell even a damn Marxist-Lenninist candidate (not that I support the MLs), I'll vote for them over the the Libs, NDPs or Tories.

Perhaps so...but which is more politically expedient? People lobbied for gun control...the poverty groups lobbying for social change doesn't have as much pull...because just like in the US, many Canadians believe poverty is an issue of individual weakness.

Social programs fail when they are poorly conceived - not because people are weak or lazy. Indeed, a poorly conceived government program of any kind can cause ruination.

I think it would be better to find out why the gun violence is going up, rather than try to ban all guns. Since the US is so easy to reach, a gun ban would be literally impossible to enforce.

I agree fully. I forget the name of the politician up there, but he crunched some numbers on how many police, border patrol, and/or social programs that could have been funded w/ that money.
What we need to be worried about is increasing efficiency in all programs...too much money gets wasted in bureaucratic bungling and dishonesty.

Anyone else feel like smashing the state? Because I can't see how there could ever be a bureaucratic reform...the whole system is set up to maximise inertia. In triplicate.

I don't. I don't claim that ownership directly leads to a drop in crime. I also don't claim that restrictions lead to a drop (or a rise) in crime. I oppose restrictions on LAC's because all it does is lead to more reductions in rights.
Okay. Agreed.

What we need to be worried about is increasing efficiency in all programs...too much money gets wasted in bureaucratic bungling and dishonesty.

Anyone else feel like smashing the state? Because I can't see how there could ever be a bureaucratic reform...the whole system is set up to maximise inertia. In triplicate.

In the US, we managed to identify massive housing blocks for welfare recipients as a problem, and dismantled them in the mid-1990s. Progress can be made, you just have to demand it.

BTW, it was an expensive solution, but it worked. Beware the politician who tells you he can work miracles on the cheap (which I believe was the initial promise of the Canadian gun registration scheme).

In the US, we managed to identify massive housing blocks for welfare recipients as a problem, and dismantled them in the mid-1990s. Progress can be made, you just have to demand it.

BTW, it was an expensive solution, but it worked. Beware the politician who tells you he can work miracles on the cheap (which I believe was the initial promise of the Canadian gun registration scheme).

I believe the original number was 2-8 million?

I believe the original number was 2-8 million?

Yep - but then of course some problems arose with resistance from some provinces... okay just Alberta really; and then there was the legal battles with various NRA sponsored groups and other gun-loving individuals; the rebate for those who had already registered... and of course the standard governmental issues with computers.

In the US, we managed to identify massive housing blocks for welfare recipients as a problem, and dismantled them in the mid-1990s. Progress can be made, you just have to demand it. Uh-huh...and where were all the welfare recipients moved to?

So often these plans just mean that the poor people are moved to another area of town. "Beautification" means getting the ugly classes out.

Uh-huh...and where were all the welfare recipients moved to?

So often these plans just mean that the poor people are moved to another area of town. "Beautification" means getting the ugly classes out.

Instead of being concentrated in huge ghettos, they were extremely dispersed throughout most other neighborhoods.

Decentralizing the poor gives them access to better schools, better housing, and better role models. It actually works. It also lowers the crime rate, and lowers the chance these people will do drugs, become involved in violence, or grow up poor themselves.

Go figure...

Yep - but then of course some problems arose with resistance from some provinces... okay just Alberta really; and then there was the legal battles with various NRA sponsored groups and other gun-loving individuals; the rebate for those who had already registered... and of course the standard governmental issues with computers.

It was more than "just" Alberta. I'ld like some source on the "NRA sponsored groups".

It was more just a hosed up, incompetant system in the first place.

Oh boy, just what we need....another gun control debate!!

Perhaps we (Canadians) should be more like the Virginians who seem comfortable in allowing the NRA to dictate political policies on guns?

Oh boy, just what we need....another gun control debate!!

Perhaps we (Canadians) should be more like the Virginians who seem comfortable in allowing the NRA to dictate political policies on guns?

It's not a gun control debate. You're obviously not reading my post in detail.

The NDP says that the proposal is superfluous - it's already essentially impossible to get a handgun in Canada - and the new proposal apparently gives the same people the same loopholes. So no effective change.

Actually, I don't understand the confusion on this one. The UK repeatedly benned handguns from 1920 somethingish to 1990 somethingis. No one ever seemed to notice there.

I am sure this is much of the same.

Actually, I don't understand the confusion on this one. The UK repeatedly benned handguns from 1920 somethingish to 1990 somethingis. No one ever seemed to notice there.

I am sure this is much of the same.

READ THE POST.

WE IN THE US KNOW THAT HANDGUNS ARE EFFECTIVELY BANNED IN CANADA, SUBJECT TO A FEW EXCEPTIONS.

NOW SOME LIBERAL PARTY PERSON PROPOSES A BAN ON HANDGUNS, SUBJECT TO THE SAME EXCEPTIONS.

THE NDP PARTY NOTICES THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY DUPLICATE LEGISLATION.

READ THE POST.

WE IN THE US KNOW THAT HANDGUNS ARE EFFECTIVELY BANNED IN CANADA, SUBJECT TO A FEW EXCEPTIONS.

NOW SOME LIBERAL PARTY PERSON PROPOSES A BAN ON HANDGUNS, SUBJECT TO THE SAME EXCEPTIONS.

THE NDP PARTY NOTICES THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY DUPLICATE LEGISLATION.

YES. THAT SORT OF THING USED TO GO ON IN THE UK. PEOPLE LIKE IT.

YES. THAT SORT OF THING USED TO GO ON IN THE UK. PEOPLE LIKE IT.
TOO FUNNY!! :D

TOO FUNNY!! :D
Just wondering what kind of idiot bans something, and then bans it again.

Why don't you just run through the rest of the criminal law, and repeat it again, just for emphasis?

Just wondering what kind of idiot bans something, and then bans it again.

Why don't you just run through the rest of the criminal law, and repeat it again, just for emphasis?

Seriously dude, have you ever looked at the history of anti-drug legislation, or "tough new drug laws" &c.

Actually, I am not against politicians repeatedly passing the same law over and over again. I'd prefer it if they stopped of course, but at least this way they are harmlessly amused. And idle hands are the devil's plaything.

Just wondering what kind of idiot bans something, and then bans it again.

Why don't you just run through the rest of the criminal law, and repeat it again, just for emphasis?
Perhaps you might want to wait for the entire proposal to be put forward before speculating on the details? At this moment, the hook is set and all you are doing is reeling off line.

YES. THAT SORT OF THING USED TO GO ON IN THE UK. PEOPLE LIKE IT.
Don't distract him...he doesn't want to use up his credits by having to attack the UK in this thread too...he's saving them for something else!

Perhaps you might want to wait for the entire proposal to be put forward before speculating on the details? At this moment, the hook is set and all you are doing is reeling off line.
It's not my speculation - it's the NDP's speculation.

It's not my speculation - it's the NDP's speculation.
Well, leave them to it...unless you want to speculate on their speculations?

Don't distract him...he doesn't want to use up his credits by having to attack the UK in this thread too...he's saving them for something else!

The UK rarely gets attacked. That's because they offer sherry and cake with their insults.

Though I would like to see it attacked more.

It's not my speculation - it's the NDP's speculation.
You have added your speculation to the NDP's political speculation = a whole lot of speculation?

What are the specifics? Until you know them, then debate is meaningless?

Well, leave them to it...unless you want to speculate on their speculations?
I haven't speculated on their speculations. I've just said it sounds stupid.

Oh, and I haven't found the moonbat moment for the UK for this week yet.

They can ban the fucking handguns!!!! but they cant ban machine guns or ozzys!!! ahahahha go men go!! blow the fuck out of the prime minister!!!!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Well, leave them to it...unless you want to speculate on their speculations?
I guess you and I were typing the same message to DK at the same time. Too funny.

They can ban the fucking handguns!!!! but they cant ban machine guns or ozzys!!! ahahahha go men go!! blow the fuck out of the prime minister!!!!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

You can find political bullshit if you look in there head!

It's things like these that make me wonder if Stephen Harper could really be that bad.

It's things like these that make me wonder if Stephen Harper could really be that bad.
YES! YES HE CAN! What...you think this idiocy is confined to the liberals?

Hey, where is Steph to defend her Liberals?

Hey, where is Steph to defend her Liberals?
Probably not online yet.

It was more than "just" Alberta. I'ld like some source on the "NRA sponsored groups".

It was more just a hosed up, incompetant system in the first place.

For sources just do a little internet reading up on Canadian Institute for Legislative Action... or links between the NFA and the NRA...

Just wondering what kind of idiot bans something, and then bans it again.

Why don't you just run through the rest of the criminal law, and repeat it again, just for emphasis?

I just wondering what kind of idiot can't tell the difference between a prohibitied/resricited weapon (ie. one that some people can have) and a banned weapon (ie. one that no civilian can have).

YES! YES HE CAN! What...you think this idiocy is confined to the liberals?
Well he's stopped saying that he'll repeal the law allowing gay marriage and now favours a free vote, which I could live with.

I'm sick of parties like the Liberals and NDP trying to ban guns rather than addressing the reasons why people are committing crimes with guns in the first place. Let's face it, if we could grow this country's economy enough so that even the poorest people had comfortable lifestyles, the demand for crime would go way down. Instead, we waste money on programs that address the symptoms rather than the root cause and wonder why they never work right. Why aren't we fighting poverty rather than fighting guns? When's the last time you heard of a rich man holding up a convenience store? It doesn't happen, and yet breaking the cycle of poverty that drives so many people to commit crimes is much less important to the average politician than having a policy that looks tough on crime while really doing very little.

I got it, thanks. I was just commenting on the sorry depths to which our Northern neighbor has descended. What a shame. :(
What depths did we sink to?

We have more freedoms than you guys, we just don't have guns... we're not obsessed with guns and don't generally feel the need to have them so legislation against them isn't a big deal. It was never in our constitution that we have the right to have guns et c.

Verily do I say onto those who hath said that there be no need for firearms in our modern society:

Tell that to the Citizens of New Orleans! Hurricane Katrina forms: dispatch office informs the populace that it would be unable to respond to any 911 calls after Katrina struck, that is to say, NOPD was going to be emasculated. Hurricane Katrina struck. Phone lines went down. Looters grabbed guns and went on a rampage, while NOPD tried their best to keep the town under control, but it wasn't enough. It couldn't be enough. As we all know, a lot of the NOPD went AWOL after the hurricane and they didn't have the numbers to keep all of New Orleans safe in the first place, with no phones and no radio dispatch. Solution? Citizens with guns formed vigilance groups who, for the week it took the Federal Government to respond, protected their property, their lives, and the lives of their neighbors from the looters and rapists that ran rampant on the streets of New Orleans.

Clearly, there is absolutely no need for guns in our society, especially in urban areas. Except when disaster strikes and there isn't a police man in sight. By which point it's too late for you. Too late for your friends. Too late for your family. You get to be beaten up, raped, robbed, and left for dead. If only you had had a gun....

Put simply, criminals don't care about government regulations. That's why they call them criminals. They run all over the place with guns that are already illegal. So. Wotcha gonna do when one of them decides he doesn't like your face? Call the cops? They'll be there in five minutes. You have one minute, before a thug puts three rounds from his illegally imported, illegally purchased (or outright stolen) AK-47. What do you do now?

Your options:
-Hope that the AK misfires. Hope that it continues to misfire for every round in the clip and that the cops have shown up before then (by which point in time, he'll probably just use his AK to bludgeon you to death anyway).
-Hope that someone kind-hearted, who rather than register his/her gun, decided to become a criminal comes to your rescue. And then your rescuer gets to go to jail, for murder, for an illegal weapon. Even though he/she saved your life.
-Hope that God smiles upon you and smites your foe with lightning from the Heavens.
-WAIT! You do have a gun! FIREFIGHT!

Personally, I wouldn't put much weight into any of those, including the last one.

OK, now we're done with that. What about 'guns kill people'? Of course they do! Let's make them illegal. And while we're at it, let's illegalize cars, knives, baseball bats, cigarettes, enemas, glass, steel. Hell, let's just build a giant robot-manned prison and have everyone thrown into it! Best of all worlds, right? No more nobility, no more commoners, no more classes, no more rich, no more poor, everyone gets to laze about, and everyone is perfectly safe from everyone else!

Back onto the topic:

I don't feel so bad about Bush any more! (Since I doubt anyone knows this about me, I am and have been an ardent anti-Bushy since, oh around the time the idea of invading Iraq was first made public by the administration. So that last statement actually means a lot.)

Post Script: I would be ardently anti-gun. But you'd have to travel back in time to the invention of gun powder and make sure it never happened. Then there would be no guns. But so long as there are any guns anywhere, they are a threat to peace-loving citizens. May as well let the citizens fight back, I say. Of course, if you did succeed in uninventing the gun, then we'd be having this same argument over crossbows or knives under a certain length. Actually, crossbows were outlawed by Papal decree (at least for when one was fighting against another Catholic opponent). It obviously did not succeed.

Tell that to the Citizens of New Orleans! Hurricane Katrina forms: dispatch office informs the populace that it would be unable to respond to any 911 calls after Katrina struck, that is to say, NOPD was going to be emasculated. Hurricane Katrina struck. Phone lines went down. Looters grabbed guns and went on a rampage, while NOPD tried their best to keep the town under control, but it wasn't enough. It couldn't be enough. As we all know, a lot of the NOPD went AWOL after the hurricane and they didn't have the numbers to keep all of New Orleans safe in the first place, with no phones and no radio dispatch. Solution? Citizens with guns formed vigilance groups who, for the week it took the Federal Government to respond, protected their property, their lives, and the lives of their neighbors from the looters and rapists that ran rampant on the streets of New Orleans.
Yeah, except that happened in the US, and where talking about Canada, where the government doesn't let disasters like the New Orleans disaster get handled so badly. Believe me, my whole city could have flooded in 1997, but the government had adequately funded the levee and floodway system so the crisis was averted.

No, you don't get the thread, or you haven't read it.

We in the States know that you have essentially had a handgun ban for 60 years. Very few people can get a permit to own one. You have to be a competitive shooter, collector, or law enforcement - i.e., the government has to agree you have a legitimate need.

Now here comes the Liberal Party, and says they're going to pass a law to restrict handguns - and they'll make sure that only a competitive shooter, collector, or law enforcement can get to own one.

That has to be one of the stupidest things we've heard out of Canada - and that's what we're dismayed about.

Oh yeah, you wanna hear stupid; what about that shoot first law they passed in florida recently? [/QUOTE]The Florida measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.[/QUOTE]

Now that's stupid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051208/ca_pr_on_na/fedelxn_liberals_handguns

Was reading about a Liberal Party plan to ban handguns, with exceptions to collectors, competitive shooters, and law enforcement - and I was scratching my head, because I thought that handguns were already severely restricted in Canada.

Seems that there's a problem with inner city crime and murder, and someone wants to make an announcement that they've solved the problem or have the solution in hand.

And then the NDP spoke up...

So what is your point?

Canadians shouldn't be mad about banning handguns, because handguns are already banned?

I just wondering what kind of idiot can't tell the difference between a prohibitied/resricited weapon (ie. one that some people can have) and a banned weapon (ie. one that no civilian can have).

Excellent point.

So what is your point?

Canadians shouldn't be mad about banning handguns, because handguns are already banned?

Right now, unless you have an exception - that is, you are a competitive shooter, or collector, you can't get one in Canada. Effectively a ban, with some exceptions.

The Liberals are proposing a ban on handguns - with the exact same exceptions.

Oooh. I bet that will really make a difference. That's my point.

Imagine that we passed a law saying you couldn't commit assault and battery. And then some politician comes down and says, "We need to get tough on people who beat other people - let's pass a law saying that's against the law"

Repeated passing of laws with the exact same effect and consequences (no matter how differently they are worded) is idiocy at best.

Right now, unless you have an exception - that is, you are a competitive shooter, or collector, you can't get one in Canada. Effectively a ban, with some exceptions.

The Liberals are proposing a ban on handguns - with the exact same exceptions.

Oooh. I bet that will really make a difference. That's my point.

Imagine that we passed a law saying you couldn't commit assault and battery. And then some politician comes down and says, "We need to get tough on people who beat other people - let's pass a law saying that's against the law"

Repeated passing of laws with the exact same effect and consequences (no matter how differently they are worded) is idiocy at best.

Not quite true...

For example today I was down at the university's range having some fun shooting targets after my 6th exam of the week. I'm not a competative shooter, nor am I a collector (too expensive) - but low and behold under the current laws I can qualify as a temporary shooter with but a student card :mp5:

Now obviously under the proposed changes that would fly anymore - because while currently handgun use is resricted; it would be banned for civilians... honestly I can't understand why you are failing to grasp such a simple distinction.

Not quite true...

For example today I was down at the university's range having some fun shooting targets after my 6th exam of the week. I'm not a competative shooter, nor am I a collector (too expensive) - but low and behold under the current laws I can qualify as a temporary shooter with but a student card :mp5:

Now obviously under the proposed changes that would fly anymore - because while currently handgun use is resricted; it would be banned for civilians... honestly I can't understand why you are failing to grasp such a simple distinction.

Because the new proposal has exceptions for competitive shooters and collectors - who are civilians. Why can't you grasp that?

Heh. There's idiots everywhere.

Because the new proposal has exceptions for competitive shooters and collectors - who are civilians. Why can't you grasp that?

Because slappy you misrepresentations of the issue and/or facts render any comprehension by me impossible - I tend to rely on logic and all that.

Anyways I'll lay it out for in nice and simple language:
1- Yes currently handguns are resricted; with exceptions for gun clubs, competative shooters, businesses, collectors, and certain "special persons".

2- Hangun purchases can be currently made through either your local firearms dealer, the internet, or in the US with a little paperwork.

Now as for what changes:
1- a) Gun Clubs & Competative Shooters: competative shooting firearms would be limited to just that; handguns designed for competative shoots... so your standard 22 rim fire and such. No more .357, .45, 9mm handguns - which lets face it are really only designed for one thing...
b) Businesses & "special persons" will experience little change - except that they will have to purchase their firearms in the same way that the police do - ie. through a security purchasing permit direct from the manufacturer.
c) Collectors - well they would be even more limited in their method of aquisition and storage for fireamrs... but again not a big issue since the vast majority of Collectors are individuals but museums and such.

2- What does this mean? Well for one any Canadian purchasing a handgun in the US, or a US arms dealer selling to a non-resident (US) Canadian would be commiting a much more serious crime under a ban - kinda like selling a military grade weapon now.

Will this all make a significant dent on the problem of gun violence commited with handguns? Not really - unless they couple the above with stiffer penalities for those bringing handguns into Canada (roughly 90%+ of all illegal handguns come from the US)... and of course Canadian Customs gets some F**KING COOPERATION FROM US BORDER AGENTS.

*gun rant*
Save it. Our cultures are different, and ours does not include a glorification of the 'right to bear arms'. Your argument is meaningless to us.

Save it. Our cultures are different, and ours does not include a glorification of the 'right to bear arms'. Your argument is meaningless to us.

No I'd say his rant isn't meaningless - it provides quite a nice example of the f*ck'ed up gun culture Canada is trying to avoid (fight).

Because the new proposal has exceptions for competitive shooters and collectors - who are civilians. Why can't you grasp that?
And he just said that right now, he has access to a handgun, and he is NOT a collector or a competative shooter. Obviously, the rules right now are more lenient than what is being proposed, because apparently under the new law, he would cease to have access to handguns.

No I'd say his rant isn't meaningless - it provides quite a nice example of the f*ck'ed up gun culture Canada is trying to avoid (fight).
Well seriously...I HATE it when USians go on about guns to us. When have we approached it as a defense issue? For the majority of Canadians opposing gun legislation, it's about HUNTING, not 'defending property from criminals'.

Well seriously...I HATE it when USians go on about guns to us. When have we approached it as a defense issue? For the majority of Canadians opposing gun legislation, it's about HUNTING, not 'defending property from criminals'.

Sooo true... the vast, vast majority of Canadians really can't see the point of handguns. Maybe because the truth that handguns are really only designed to kill people is a little easier to grasp up here?

Canadians can quite easily differentiate between the purpose behind rifles & shotguns and handguns - the first are essentially tools, the later are weapons.

The LIEberal Party of Canada is doing the typical thing....pandering to brain-dead Ontarians. (not to infer that ALL Ontarians are brain-dead.) The gun registry, a 2+billion dollar waste, targetted all law-abiding citizens with hunting rifles. This "new" law will target nobody. It is just bluster. Unfortunately, any noise about gun "control" will give the Ontarians an erection (even the feminists).
As a nation, these types of illegitimate laws are indicative of the ignorance and ultimate lack of thought that our citizens employ. We love to grab onto buzzwords and personal attacks on people for attempting to educate the filthy masses.

Of course, the gun control dealie MUST be to take a hard stance on gun-related crime and criminals, not law-abiding citizens.
Besides, the gangs members around here (Edmonton, Alberta) tend to use Uzis, Mac10s, HK MP5s and AK74(auto) which are, of course, fully restricted to military and RCMP use only.

Sooo true... the vast, vast majority of Canadians really can't see the point of handguns. Maybe because the truth that handguns are really only designed to kill people is a little easier to grasp up here?
I'd still rather see the money that would go into enforcing a ban go towards relieving poverty and the demand for crime in the first place.

@Smoked Oysters: ...right...

I'm sorry, but what is the point of this thread, and more importantly, why is it seven pages long?
I see the exact same arguments on page seven I saw on page one.

I'm sorry, but what is the point of this thread, and more importantly, why is it seven pages long?
I see the exact same arguments on page seven I saw on page one.
Because the gun-control advocates keep skirting the issue and the anti-gun-controllers keep spewing rhetorical garbage so they'll never see eye to eye?

The LIEberal Party of Canada is doing the typical thing....pandering to brain-dead Ontarians. (not to infer that ALL Ontarians are brain-dead.)


Oh yeah, let's bring the "LIBERAL ONTARIO" shit again.

Um we voted for Mike Harris, a conservative at one point, and NDP Bob Rae. So to say we are "Liberals and nothing but" is a very moronic stereotype.

The problem isn't Ontario, but the golden boy Stephen Harper. He is bringing back the "gay marriage" issue again, why? Why make a non-issue into an issue now?

If Harper focused more on what we want to hear (healthcare, taxes, economy, military, etc) instead of what we should obey to (religion, abortion, gay marriage) then Ontario would actually LIKE him.

I'm still voting for Harper, because I know he won't win anything more than a minority and would have to cooperate with the other parties. If Harper wants Ontario voters, he should lay his religion aside and act more like a politician.

I love how Paul Martin is trying to blame Canada's problems on the United States again. See, last time I checked, it was Canadians killing Canadians, not Americans. It's not just poverty that causes crime, but the lack of security or punishment for doing the wrong deed. I remember years ago when I first came to Ontario and visited Toronto, and there was always a police officer around. Nowadays, the Toronto Police force has less then what is required (500 less then standard I believe) and getting screwed over by politics. Our court system is a joke, allowing a certain school girl killer walk free with no restrictions whatsoever. Young Offenders protects the young murderers and since there isn't executions, people can literally get away from murder(s).

What to fix the problem? Increase border patrol. Slash outdated laws like Young Offenders act. Make the courts work WITH the police department, not against them. And finally, get more police officers.

Its the officers and courts job to put people in jail, not a politician.