Canadian Libers Ponder Banning Handguns

[CameraGuy]

Announcement doesn't mean a whole lot

Martin's announcement doesn't mean a whole lot.

The proposed ban doesn't really change the current laws, other than forcing a few collectors to re-register themselves as target shooters, or sell their collections. We've already had to register handguns for more than 60 years, and the regulations on what you can own, how and when you can transport them, and what they can be used for (essentially target shooting and nothing else) are extremely strict.

You have to remember that we're heading into an election up here, and the Liberals are trying to win votes in urban areas where guns and gun crimes are being played up as "scary" by the media. None of the weapons being used in those crimes are legally registered, and most are being smuggled in illegally from the states (and probably often stolen or illegally obtained in the US in the first place). The Liberal party is trying to make uninformed voters think that they are tough on crime, and distract them from allegations of corruption and mis use of public funds by the Liberal party.

Most of the news reports and discussion I've seen so far have been making fun of Martin for making an essentially irrelevant announcement in the hopes of getting voters who don't have any idea of what the issues are to vote for him. This also increases the chances that the Liberal goverment's poorly run and massively expensive (over $1 billion, when the government originally claimed it would only cost "1 to 2 million dollars) long gun registry will become an election issue.

I expect the Liberals are also trying to get the Conservative party (which is generally in favour of letting people have firearms) to say something pro-gun that urban voters would consider scary.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Martin's announcement doesn't mean a whole lot.

...

I expect the Liberals are also trying to get the Conservative party (which is generally in favour of letting people have firearms) to say something pro-gun that urban voters would consider scary.

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. The Liberals are not particularly good at governing, but they are geniuses at getting elected.

[Hexis]

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. The Liberals are not particularly good at governing, but they are geniuses at getting elected.

I don't think that's specific to just liberals, more along the line of politicans.

[Eagle]

I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I read a while back in a NRA news magazine that violent crime has skyrocketed in Britian and Australia since those 2 countries banned gun ownership. What pisses me off is this woman (can't remember her name, just that she had a vague resemblence to Rosie O'Donnel) was trying to push through both here in Congress and in the UN (and she's not an American either-can't remember for certain, but I think she was from Britian) a complete banning of guns owned by any non-governmental entity both here and the world over. Evidently she's been going country to country doing this, and has succeeded in many of them. Not that it would ever work in a place like the USA.

[Eric Cartman]

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. The Liberals are not particularly good at governing, but they are geniuses at getting elected.

I won't be at all surprised if they get in again. I have lost all faith in the Ontario voters. Paul Martin could kill and eat babies on live TV and in a week, the Liberals would be back leading the polls. There's no scandal big enough, no lie bold enough no amount of incompetance that will make the voters realize that literally anyone would be better in office than these clowns.

[SlartyBartFast]

As a Canadain id like to point out that not all of us are as dumb as our brain dead leaders LOL.

Beacause, heaven fobid we judge Americans by their leaders.

And on that note, go to hell TP. If you hate Canadians why would you be even remotely interested in following our political news or pointing it out to others?

It's yet another knee-jerk reaction for the optics of "doing something about the problem". An approach that is too often used by members of all political parties, in every country, and more often around election time.

Current Handgun laws are adequate. But I think the required training lacks a lot to be desired. The difference between prohibited and restricted is laughable and rediculous.

But, considering the rumblings, I'll be heading off to make sure I can get my certificates before they go and make it so only those with retricted weapons permits now can own or use handguns as they did when they grandfathered owners of weapons that are now prohibited.

I don't believe in the "right" to or utility of self-protection (at least with deadly force) and it's not allowed in Canada anyways. Nor do I really want to have a weapon in my house (If I ever did get one, I vow never to have ammunition in the house). But, I don't like the idea of losing the possibility of every taking up target shooting.

I'll vote Martin, if only because I was disgusted by the Greens and the others are idiots or at least have more vile or undefined policies than I care to think about.

Where did the Rhino Party go? Perhaps I just won't vote...

[Target Practice]

Why would you have a gun in your house, but no ammunition? That's stupid as hell.

[beam]

*snip*

I don't believe in the "right" to or utility of self-protection (at least with deadly force) and it's not allowed in Canada anyways. Nor do I really want to have a weapon in my house (If I ever did get one, I vow never to have ammunition in the house). But, I don't like the idea of losing the possibility of every taking up target shooting.

*snip*

I'm not going to get caught up in Canada vs. US and all that, but I just have to ask if this means that you don't believe in defending yourself by killing another person? Is that what you mean? That when it comes down to it, you'd rather be killed than kill another?

[SlartyBartFast]

That when it comes down to it, you'd rather be killed than kill another?

Seeing as in the profile of young, black, male, and a gang member I only qualify for one, my chances of encountering a situation where the descision is kill or be killed are about a billion to one against, the question is irrelevant.

Wearing a helmet all the time to protect myself from a meteor strike is about as useful as having a gun around for self-protection.

I simply don't believe in ever present danger and continued paranoia. They're tools used to keep the population afraid and under control. Actually, it is the very same irrational fears and fear mongering that makes the dumb handgun ban proposal alluring to the masses.

[SlartyBartFast]

Why would you have a gun in your house, but no ammunition? That's stupid as hell.

Really? If I have a gun it's so I can shoot targets at the range. There's absolutely no reason for me to have ammunition in the house.

Anyways, by law guns and ammunition need to be stored separately, with the handgun unloaded and double locked.

And I'll ask again, why is someone from loony CA getting bothered about Canadian laws. Keep your hate to your self.

[beam]

Seeing as in the profile of young, black, male, and a gang member I only qualify for one, my chances of encountering a situation where the descision is kill or be killed are about a billion to one against, the question is irrelevant.

Wearing a helmet all the time to protect myself from a meteor strike is about as useful as having a gun around for self-protection.

I simply don't believe in ever present danger and continued paranoia. They're tools used to keep the population afraid and under control. Actually, it is the very same irrational fears and fear mongering that makes the dumb handgun ban proposal alluring to the masses.

Well, take gun vs. no gun out of the picture. If your life were on the line, would you kill another person?

[SlartyBartFast]

Well, take gun vs. no gun out of the picture. If your life were on the line, would you kill another person?

Rather vague. And impossible to tell. So many variables and so many possibilities. Coupled with the unknown of how you'lll really behave under duress.

Even cops and sodiers who train specifically for life and death scenarios can lock up under pressure.

But if you're simply asking whether existentially do I believe it's right to kill someone who is threatening your life or your family when there is no other way out? Yes I do.

Do I believe that I need to be prepared to do it? No I don't.

[beam]

Rather vague. And impossible to tell. So many variables and so many possibilities. Coupled with the unknown of how you'lll really behave under duress.

Even cops and sodiers who train specifically for life and death scenarios can lock up under pressure.

But if you're simply asking whether existentially do I believe it's right to kill someone who is threatening your life or your family when there is no other way out? Yes I do.

Do I believe that I need to be prepared to do it? No I don't.

And that makes sense. The problem is, there are other people who feel they NEED to be prepared. Some may be paranoid wackos, but others have a legitimate concern.

So, we have two different groups pitted against each other. Wouldn't you want someone else to feel safe the way you do? Due to your circumstances (whether it be who your family is, where you live, how much you make, etc.) you have the luxury of feeling safe by default. There are other people who live in literal war zones.

I'm not trying to get you to espouse to a pro-gun viewpoint, but you also don't have to be anti-gun either. If you don't feel the need to have a firearm, good (and some would say lucky) for you. But don't take that right away from others who feel the need to own a firearm.

[SlartyBartFast]

There are other people who live in literal war zones..

Except then you have the bizare situation where the majority of legitimate gun owners live nowhere near dangerous areas (excluding hunting weapons).

If I don't want people carrying guns, and that makes me feel safe, how do you deal with that? Seems the fear and need for guns is what needs proven.

I'm not trying to get you to espouse to a pro-gun viewpoint, but you also don't have to be anti-gun either. If you don't feel the need to have a firearm, good (and some would say lucky) for you. But don't take that right away from others who feel the need to own a firearm.

Wow. Aren't you putting words into my mouth. I said I'm perfectly happy with current Canadian laws. How does that make me anti-gun (in a Canadian context)?

I'm certainly never going to be an advocate of conceiled carry, but I'm far from "anti-gun". But "feeling" a need certainly isn't good enough grounds to justify anything. The fact the safest cities in North America don;t have guns, but some of the safest in the world do (say Switzerland where everyone has one) shows that society has far more of a role to play than gun ownership in terms of safety.

Owning a gun for protection, in my view, equates to the knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Getting worked up about it and making a big deal about doing what amounts to the method that requires the least effort and is in reality the least effective.

[beam]

Wow. Aren't you putting words into my mouth. I said I'm perfectly happy with current Canadian laws. How does that make me anti-gun (in a Canadian context)?

This wasn't my intention. I have to admit, I'm not knowledgeable about Canadian gun laws other than what has been said in this thread. I had thought that these new laws were nothing new. Because of that, I inferred that current Canadian gun laws are restrictive.

Mea culpa.

I'm certainly never going to be an advocate of conceiled carry, but I'm far from "anti-gun". But "feeling" a need certainly isn't good enough grounds to justify anything. The fact the safest cities in North America don;t have guns, but some of the safest in the world do (say Switzerland where everyone has one) shows that society has far more of a role to play than gun ownership in terms of safety.

I hugely agree with the statement in bold.