"Shock, sadness spread over senseless shooting"

[iverglas]

(There is no smoking in restaurants and bars in Ontario, fyi.)

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/525076

An "extremely dangerous" Toronto resident is the subject of a Canada-wide police manhunt following the weekend shooting death of a young woman innocently taking a smoke break outside a Queen St. E. tavern.

... Bailey Zaveda, 23, died of gunshot wounds to the torso early Saturday as she stood outside the Duke of York tavern having a cigarette. A man started firing a semi-automatic pistol near the front doors during a dispute with another man. Four other bystanders were injured and have been released from hospital.

... "It's difficult to put into words how a coward like this would fire into a crowd of innocent individuals," (Det. Sgt. Gary) Giroux told reporters. "It's another Jane Creba-type scenario. It's unfortunate that it's happening over and over."

Fifteen-year-old Creba was killed during a gunfight on a crowded downtown sidewalk as she shopped on Boxing Day in 2005. The trial of one of the people charged with her murder is underway.

In a shooting last January, John O'Keefe, 42, was killed by a stray bullet outside a Yonge St. bar.

The only people who may legally acquire handguns in Canada are:

- sports shooters who are members of approved clubs
- collectors who have demonstrated a knowledge of their field

and both must have permits to acquire and possess restricted firearms, handguns being restricted firearms.

The only way this individual -- who was prohibited from possessing firearms -- could have acquired a semi-automatic handgun was illegally. The handgun would have been:

- stolen from a licensed legal owner (sports shooter or collector)
- trafficked into Canada from the United States

Estimates of what proportion of "crime guns" come from the two sources vary, but currently it's thought that theft within Canada slightly outweighs smuggling from the US.


The gun used to kill John O'Keefe was legally owned by someone who jumped through the hoops to acquire it as a sports shooter, and then carried it to a bar and fired it at someone, missing and hitting a bystander. The same was true of the gun Kimveer Gill used to kill a student and seriously injure others at Dawson College in Montreal (he was shot by police before he could do more harm).

The gun used to kill Jane Creba as she shopped in the main downtown business district was stolen from a legal owner.

The gun used to kill Diane Sandeman outside a bar in a Toronto suburb in 2006 was traced to Florida.


We need to eliminate handgun possession by sports shooters and collectors in Canada. Obviously, the existing licensing system is not screening out (a) people who should not have firearms, period, and use them to cause harm, and (b) people who are negligent and fail to keep their firearms out of the hands of people who use them to cause harm.

If we "cracked down" at the border in the way a lot of the cleverclogs posting here will suggest, the US economy would be in even worse shape than it is now.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm

Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States.
U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.

Any other suggestions for how to deal with the problem of firearms trafficking from the US to Canada gratefully received.

[midnight]

1. Is "Crazy" being orchestrated to reign in even more freedoms?

If we "cracked down" at the border in the way a lot of the cleverclogs posting here will suggest, the US economy would be in even worse shape than it is now.

[iverglas]

2. sorry

Not getting that at all.

[jeepnstein]

5. They sure don't...

I still think passing a law against killing someone makes perfect sense. That way, a person who chooses to own a firearm but not use it to commit murder is free to own whatever firearm they need. In the hands of a lawful citizen, a firearm is not a threat to anyone. If a person decides murder is a good course of action, they get arrested.

The Bill of Rights is not a menu from which the state gets to order what it feels we would like.

[iverglas]

9. wow

There's something in the opening post that I'm just not seeing, I guess.

Something to which all these weird and wonderful "replies" actually relates ...

[jeepnstein]

13. I seriously doubt you'll ever "get it".

That would take the fun out of it for you. You wish to impose your values on citizens who are used to a very different set of political realities. I don't see how we could ever come to any common ground on this subject since you want to take away my Constitutional Rights and I don't wish to surrender them. When people don't respond the way you wish, you become angry and start using vulgar language as if spoiling for a fight.

[iverglas]

17. nah

You wish to impose your values on citizens who are used to a very different set of political realities. de blah blah blah.

You wish to make shit up and pretend it came from my keyboard. Just like all your confrères before you.

Good luck, and have fun.

[jeepnstein]

18. See, there you go...

with the vulgar language again. It's really unnecessary.

[iverglas]

20. speaking of unnecessary

Your etiquette lessons are. Truly. I assure you.

[iverglas]

21. btw

If a person decides murder is a good course of action, they get arrested.

You forget that one tiny wee other consequence.

If a person decides murder is a good course of action, someone is dead.

But who gives a flying fuck about that, eh?

[DrCory]

23. And they can kill with something other than a firearm...

Or is that a revelation to you?

[iverglas]

25. "revelation"?

I think you must mean that in the biblical sense. The sense of weird and wonderful tale of strange doings never seen on this earth.

There being no way in this real universe of ours that someone can say something like

And they can kill with something other than a firearm

and believe it to be relevant to anything under discussion here.

Have you noticed yet what thread you're in?

... Bailey Zaveda, 23, died of gunshot wounds to the torso early Saturday as she stood outside the Duke of York tavern having a cigarette. A man started firing a semi-automatic pistol near the front doors during a dispute with another man. Four other bystanders were injured and have been released from hospital.

This killing -- like the killing of Jane Creba and the killing of John O'Keefe, also in Toronto -- was UNINTENTIONAL.

The individuals who killed them DID NOT INTEND to kill THEM. The individual who killed Ephraim Brown as he played outside his home DID NOT INTEND to kill HIM. The individuals who kill children in the US by firing shots through their windows or their walls as they lie sleeping in their beds DO NOT INTEND to kill them. Etc., etc., etc.

So what earthly sense does it to blather on about how someone can kill someone with something other than a firearm in this discussion?

Bring me your tales of people killed by knife or fist or pillow or pail BY SOMEONE WHO WAS AIMING AT SOMEONE ELSE, or at nothing at all. Please.


Now, if you actually wanted to respond to the post you replied to, in which I said:

If a person decides murder is a good course of action, someone is dead.
But who gives a flying fuck about that, eh?

why don't you try doing that in some meaningful way?

Meanwhile, approximately 10 thousand of the approximately 15 thousand homicides committed annually in the US are committed by firearm.

Please identify those that would/could have been committed "with something other than a firearm", in your opinion.

We can rule out the bystanders and sleeping children killed in crossfire or by stray bullets.

How about the homicides committed in the course of armed robbery? Can you think of a reason why the rate of death in the course of robbery is so very much higher in the US than in Canada? Think hard. Maybe you'll conclude, as any reasonable person does, that the presence of the firearms in the former cases is pretty much the conclusive factor.


So many people need to learn so much, or acknowledge what they do know. Their tricky tricks really just don't accomplish anything, they should know by now.


typo fixed

[DrCory]

38. Funny...

This killing -- like the killing of Jane Creba and the killing of John O'Keefe, also in Toronto -- was UNINTENTIONAL.

The individuals who killed them DID NOT INTEND to kill THEM. The individual who killed Ephraim Brown as he played outside his home DID NOT INTEND to kill HIM. The individuals who kill children in the US by firing shots through their windows or their walls as they lie sleeping in their beds DO NOT INTEND to kill them. Etc., etc., etc.

...and how many people are unintentionally killed by the act of exceeding the speed limit? Yet, somehow, you never call for a prohibition on the ownership of motor vehicles.


Please identify those that would/could have been committed "with something other than a firearm", in your opinion.

Are you kidding? Please tell me you do not deny that weapons other than firearms can and are used to kill, intentionally or otherwise and please elaborate as to why you're not advocate their prohibition.

Maybe you'll conclude, as any reasonable person does, that the presence of the firearms in the former cases is pretty much the conclusive factor.

And maybe you'll conclude, as any reasonable person does, that the intent to commit robbery, and the act of robbery itself, is the issue. In my case, the presence of a firearm was a conclusive factor in preventing an armed robbery.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. I'm guessing he forgot to quote you properly.

And also forgot to respond to it.

To me 'cracking down' on the border doesn't mean closing it. There are increased costs with more thorough screening legal commerce over the border, but the problem goes both ways. Here, pot is illegal for recreational use. Plenty of illegal trafficking both ways (B.C. Bud is popular in the Northwest US). If we can't catch hundreds of tons of pot and thousands of pounds of Cocaine coming in with current measures, i'm not surprised you aren't catching thousands of pounds of firearms coming in.

It's the same problem really. Something considered contraband on one side, is supplied by miscreants on the other. (I'm not sure what the explanation is for Cocaine, which I imagine is illegal in Canada as well)


Restricting collector and other private ownership of firearms is of course, your own business.

[iverglas]

10. the explanation

(I'm not sure what the explanation is for Cocaine, which I imagine is illegal in Canada as well)

There is little access for cocaine coming to Canada that doesn't involve going through the US.

Even if there were, there needs to be something to trade for it. The money, if that is what is traded, has to be laundered or spent somehow.

For cocaine moving into the US, the consideration, or what the money is spent on, includes firearms.

For cocaine moving into Canada, it includes cannabis. There are no firearms in Canada that can be exchanged for cocaine / purchased with money from cocaine sales. And nobody south of the US-Mexico border wants Canada's cannabis. So the trade is cocaine/firearms northward, cannabis southward.

Obviously, Canadian governments are aware of this and take enforcement action against cannabis grow operations and their operators in Canada's interests -- to reduce the valuable goods available for exchanging for cocaine and firearms.

If the US took action to control trafficking in firearms, it would ensure that there was less of the valuable goods available to trade southward for cocaine and northward for cannabis.

Of course, if the US decriminalized cannabis possession, for starters, and preferably all narcotics possession, there would be nothing north and south of the US to trade for the firearms coming from the US.

Meanwhile, with the huge demand for cocaine and cannabis located in the US, and the huge supply of firearms located in the US, cocaine and cannabis are going to continue to be trafficked into the US from south and north, and firearms are going to continue to be trafficked south and north out of the US.

The US is very obviously the only party that can take effective action to stop the cross-border flows on both its borders: by decriminalizing cannabis or all narcotics possession, and by taking measures to restrict the supply of firearms for trafficking.

If you see an action that either Mexico or Canada could take -- other than law enforcement, which both are taking already within the limits of their ability -- pass it on.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I generally tend towards

not allowing anything over the border that is not legal and approved by both the exporting and importing nations. However, that has never really worked anywhere in the world, ever.

I do like the reducing demand option, I'm cautiously optimistic Congress and Obama might make some progress in that regard. On the firearms front, short of spot checks on people who purchase multiple firearms, and eliminating private transfers.. I don't see what more can be done. I mean, it sounds like we don't have much regulation down here, but really, if you've ever dealt with it... It's not as easy as it sounds. (At least not in Washington State)

Requiring all legal firearms transfers through an FFL would certainly help. I can live with the $30 fee.

[DrCory]

3. If smoking were banned...

She would likely be alive today. Yeah, makes about as much sense as banning legal posession of handguns by Canadians if, as you say, many are illegaly smuggled across the border.

Don't look to us to sacrifice our RKBA because of the behavior of thugs in another sovereign nation.

[iverglas]

4. actually

If smoking in premises open to the public weren't banned, she might be alive today.

She might also be alive if she had got the flu and stayed home.

What we do KNOW is that if there had been no firearm in the hands of the person who killed her, she would be alive today.


Yeah, makes about as much sense as banning legal posession of handguns by Canadians if, as you say, many are illegaly smuggled across the border.

Actually, it made a whole lot more sense than that dog's breakfast, I'd say.

Tightly restricting possession of handguns in Canada (as is now the case) -- and using the firearms licensing and registry systems to deter illegal transfers of handguns, and mandating safe/secure storage -- means that it is exponentially more difficult for someone to acquire a handgun illegally in Canada than in the US.

Voluntary transfers by legal owners will be minimal, with a licensing and registration system and with tight restrictions on who may acquire a handgun legally in the first place.

To acquire a handgun illegally, assuming it is not voluntarily transferred by a legal owner, the handgun must first be stolen from a legal owner or smuggled into Canada from the US.

In the US, with the far greater ease of acquiring handguns illegally through straw purchases and private sales, and the vastly higher number of firearms available for theft from lawful owners and circulating in the black market, handguns are accessible to criminals to an extent unimaginable in Canada. (Note also that a licence is required to purchase ammunition in Canada.)


Don't look to us to sacrifice our RKBA because of the behavior of thugs in another sovereign nation.

Hey, we don't actually look to you to do anything that would bring huge benefits to the rest of the world at small sacrifice to yourself. Or even just to refrain from raining shit on the rest of the world for no good reason at all.

You're perfectly happy to have millions and millions of firearms in the hands of criminals in your own country, and to have 10,000 residents of your country killed by firearm every year. As long as that's the case, it would be foolish to expect you to worry about a few dozen people in Canada ... or a few thousand people in Mexico ... being killed with firearms acquired in your country.

Not even if taking measures to stop the cross-border flow of those firearms would obviously beneficial effects internally in the US as well. Enlightened self-interest is plainly too much to expect.

[raimius]

7. symptom or disease?

You are still trying to kill cancer with cough drops.

Guns are not the root of the problem. Violent people will continue to attack others, whether legal firearms are available or not.

Banning guns would *probably* reduce gun crime, but overall violent crime would likely remain the same. (I say "probably" because gun crimes in the UK have actually increased since their handgun ban.) Criminals will use whatever is handy, be it firearms in the US, knives in the UK, or machetes in parts of Africa.

[iverglas]

8. noise or nonsense?

Guns are not the root of the problem. Violent people will continue to attack others, whether legal firearms are available or not.

Fever is not the "root of the problem" for a person suffering from typhoid fever.

Nevertheless, the fever will kill the person if untreated.

Clean drinking water is an excellent idea, if one wants to stamp out typhoid fever.

Ordinarily, one continues to treat the people suffering from it in the meantime -- and quarantine them, too.


Banning guns would *probably* reduce gun crime, but overall violent crime would likely remain the same.

Blahdy blaydy blah blah blah.

This thread is about HANDGUNS. Care to stick to the subject?

And it isn't about "banning" them. It is about MAKING IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for those who would use them to cause harm to obtain them.

And it isn't about "violent crime". It is about homicides committed with handguns.

Y'all c'mon back if you run into something intelligent to say on the subject.

This:

(I say "probably" because gun crimes in the UK have actually increased since their handgun ban.)

isn't. Nor is:

Criminals will use whatever is handy, be it firearms in the US, knives in the UK, or machetes in parts of Africa.

There may be some uniformed noodleheads somewhere on the internet interested in hearing somebody spew gun militant talking points. I ain't one of 'em.

[DrCory]

24. If not a ban...

what do you call this?:

"We need to eliminate handgun possession by sports shooters and collectors in Canada."

And it isn't about "banning" them.

Okey dokey :eyes:

[iverglas]

27. you do have a hard time with meaning, don't you?

I said:

And it isn't about "banning" them. It is about MAKING IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for those who would use them to cause harm to obtain them.

The problem is that handguns are too readily available to people who use them to commit crimes and cause harm.

The way to address the problem is to MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for them to obtain them.


I was responding to someone who said (emphasis added):

Banning guns would *probably* reduce gun crime, but overall violent crime would likely remain the same.

The issue raised in this thread was not "gun crime" or "violent crime". I was pointing out that I was not speaking of banning GUNS. As you, with that Dr. in front of your name, suggesting that you are able to read beyond the grade four level, were perfectly aware.

The issue was the commission of homicides by people with access to handguns.

And I made no suggestion of "banning guns", and have never made any such suggestion. As, again, you are perfectly aware. And I don't dance with people who pretend I said things I didn't say.

Prohibiting possession of handguns is what I advocate to reduce access to handguns by people who use them to commit crimes and homicides.

Back to your knitting.


typo fixed

[DrCory]

32. Huh?

And I made no suggestion of "banning guns", and have never made any such suggestion.

Prohibiting possession of handguns is what I advocate

If a handgun isn't a gun, what is it? If a prohibition isn't a ban, what is it?

[raimius]

36. subject...

This thread is about HANDGUNS. Care to stick to the subject?
Sure, substitute "handguns" for "guns" in my previous post. My argument remains.

And it isn't about "banning" them. It is about MAKING IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for those who would use them to cause harm to obtain them.
...eliminating the possession of handguns...
...sounds like a ban to me. Please explain how eliminating possession is not the same as a ban, under your plan.

And it isn't about "violent crime". It is about homicides committed with handguns
If your desire is to eliminate homicides by handguns, but leave violent crime at a static level, fine. I would rather reduce violent crime rates (including all types of homicides).

You may not consider "I say 'probably' because gun crimes in the UK have actually increased since their handgun ban" to be an intelligent statement, but it is supported by statistics reported by the UK government.
"The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

Do you contest the validity of this? "Criminals will use whatever is handy, be it firearms in the US, knives in the UK, or machetes in parts of Africa."
About 2/3 of US homicides in 2005 involved firearms. "In 2005, of the 820 homicides in 2005 in England and Wales, 236 - or 29 per cent - were with a knife or other sharp instrument." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572908/Is-Britain-in-the-grip-of-a-knife-crime-epidemic.html
These are recorded facts, not "gun militant talking points."

Can we cease the insults? They are not conductive to a civil discussion on the merits of legislative policy.

[DrCory]

42. If "This thread is about HANDGUNS."...

Why this terminology?:

"You're perfectly happy to have millions and millions of firearms in the hands of criminals in your own country, and to have 10,000 residents of your country killed by firearm every year. As long as that's the case, it would be foolish to expect you to worry about a few dozen people in Canada ... or a few thousand people in Mexico ... being killed with firearms acquired in your country."

Hey, you're the one who made the leap to firearms in general. Unless you are suggesting that only handguns are firearms.

[DrCory]

15. A bit of advice...

If you are contemplating a career change, I would suggest you avoid mentalism. Your lack of talent is comically evident:

You're perfectly happy to have millions and millions of firearms in the hands of criminals in your own country, and to have 10,000 residents of your country killed by firearm every year. As long as that's the case, it would be foolish to expect you to worry about a few dozen people in Canada ... or a few thousand people in Mexico ... being killed with firearms acquired in your country.

You must be positively giddy over the number of deaths and injuries caused by drivers who exceed the speed limit.

Do you still speed? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Anyway, in regard to security of person, my foremost responsibility is toward myself and family. I continuously possesses a handgun for the purpose of some measure of defense against those violent, criminal elements who will, as common sense might dictate, likely not surrender their weapons at the pleading of the state.

Hey, we don't actually look to you to do anything that would bring huge benefits to the rest of the world at small sacrifice to yourself.

In the real world, surrendering my RKBA does nothing but render me, and those in my care, more vulnerable. Hardly a "small sacrifice". Unless you are suggesting that the "rest of the world" can guarantee our security 24/7, this would amount to little more than symbolic disarmament, which is a fool's panacea. I might, however, consider it should squad of "blue helmets" be devoted to our personal protection.

Oh, and how about the thousands of people in throughout North America who are killed, intentionally and otherwise, by implements which do not resemble firearms in any fashion? Do you not allow them a voice as well?

[iverglas]

16. blah de blah de blah

In the real world, surrendering my RKBA de blah blah blah.

If you want to address something I've actually said sometime, feel free.

[DrCory]

22. Oh, but you did say something...

By not saying something.

My statement:

"Don't look to us to sacrifice our RKBA because of the behavior of thugs in another sovereign nation."

Your response:

Hey, we don't actually look to you to do anything that would bring huge benefits to the rest of the world at small sacrifice to yourself. Or even just to refrain from raining shit on the rest of the world for no good reason at all.

You did not indicate that your definition of "sacrifice" is anything less than the complete sacrifice of the RKBA. It would have been a simple matter for you to clarify your meaning, unless you wish it not to be clear.

[iverglas]

28. and I didn't indicate that my definition of "sacrifice" ...

You did not indicate that your definition of "sacrifice" is anything less than the complete sacrifice of the RKBA.

was anything less than the sacrifice of your first-born male children.

You're a sweetheart, you are. Odd that your posts stink to such a high heaven.

[DrCory]

33. Awww, thank you, I do try.

You're a sweetheart, you are.

[DrCory]

41. Uh Huh, Just as I Thought

"and I didn't indicate that my definition of "sacrifice" ...was anything less than the sacrifice of your first-born male children."

Yet more obfuscation.

[DrCory]

39. We "Know" No Such Thing...

What we do KNOW is that if there had been no firearm in the hands of the person who killed her, she would be alive today.

Really? What magical power do you possess that can guarantee such a thing, or have you commited an error of logic?

[gorfle]

12. Why?

We need to eliminate handgun possession by sports shooters and collectors in Canada.

I'm curious as to what brought you to this conclusion.

Though you have provided some heartstring-pulling anecdotes, I wonder what percentage of legally-owned firearms end up being used in such crimes in Canada? 2%? You want to eliminate all handgun possession by sports shooters and collectors because of the actions of so few?

[iverglas]

19. ah, curiosity

We need to eliminate handgun possession by sports shooters and collectors in Canada.

I'm curious as to what brought you to this conclusion.


And I'm sure you've missed all discussion of this question in this forum in the past, some of it not too distant at all.

Thefts from people in lawful possession of handguns (i.e. sports shooters and collectors) continue to be a major source of firearms in criminal hands in Canada and thus of firearms used to commit crimes and kill people.

People in lawful possession of handguns (like the one used to kill John O'Keefe) and other restricted firearms (like the Beretta Cx4 used by Kimveer Gill at Dawson College, which he acquired legally as a sports shooter) continue to kill people.

There is no sound public policy reason to permit these two classes of individuals to continue to possess these weapons. I've repeatedly stated that I have no objection to them owning such weapons, but see no reason why they cannot be required to be stored securely, e.g., in the case of sports shooters, at the facilities that are the only places they may be used legally anyway, gun clubs.


I wonder what percentage of legally-owned firearms end up being used in such crimes in Canada? 2%? You want to eliminate all handgun possession by sports shooters and collectors because of the actions of so few?

Yup. So few is just plain too many. To people who actually care about kids and other people being murdered.

Plainly there can be no guarantees that
(a) people in lawful possession of restricted firearms will keep them out of the hands of criminals, and
(b) people in lawful possession of restricted firearms will not use them criminally.

There is simply no reason to continue to permit sports shooters and collectors to be in possession of such firearms, and very good reason not to permit it. Given the excellent public policy reason for eliminating such possession -- to reduce the crimes and homicides committed by people in such possession and to reduce the number of firearms available to others who commit such crimes and homicides with firearms in the possession of such people -- the question is not why eliminate such possession; it is why not.

This has nothing to do with firearms policy in the US. Firearms policy in Canada recognizes two reasons for lawful possession of handguns, and the position of a lot of Canadians right now is that these reasons are not sufficient for the current exemption granted those two classes of people.

We actually don't think in nonsense terms like "what percentage of legally-owned firearms end up being used in such crimes in Canada?" We recognize nonsense when we see it.

[raimius]

35. Ah, yes

We actually don't think in nonsense terms like "what percentage of legally-owned firearms end up being used in such crimes in Canada?" We recognize nonsense when we see it.
No need to weigh costs and benefits in a scientific manner, just ban the things!

Plainly there can be no guarantees that
(a) people in lawful possession of restricted firearms will keep them out of the hands of criminals, and
(b) people in lawful possession of restricted firearms will not use them criminally.
Change "restricted firearms" to any object in the world, and you now have justification to ban it.
Your argument relies mainly on the premise that it is right to deprive a legal owner of an object because someone else could steal and misuse it. That is a weak argument.

[gorfle]

43. Curiosity indeed.

Plainly there can be no guarantees that
(a) people in lawful possession of restricted firearms will keep them out of the hands of criminals, and
(b) people in lawful possession of restricted firearms will not use them criminally.

True enough. There are few guarantees in life. I'd still like to know out of all the people in lawful possession of restricted firearms, how many end up getting used criminally? How big is the problem?

We actually don't think in nonsense terms like "what percentage of legally-owned firearms end up being used in such crimes in Canada?" We recognize nonsense when we see it.

So in other words it doesn't matter to you how few people commit crimes with legally-owned firearms, you just want to ban them anyway.

I'm still curious as to how big your perceived problem is that drives you to want to ban legally-owned firearms. What percentage of legally-owned firearms are involved in crime in Canada?

[DrCory]

44. I can think of one...

There is no sound public policy reason to permit these two classes of individuals to continue to possess these weapons.

Self defense.

[DrCory]

45. No Reason? Are You Certain?

..."but see no reason why they cannot be required to be stored securely, e.g., in the case of sports shooters, at the facilities that are the only places they may be used legally anyway, gun clubs."

Can you absolutely guarantee handguns stored in such a facility will not be stolen? Such a concentration seems a tempting target for well planned and executed theft. Perhaps more secure than if stored in the home, but not a perfect solution.

[SteveM]

14. Generally, interdiction in service of cross-border prohibition is a failure. (nt)

[Indy Lurker]

26. The demand for firearms needs to be reduced

If, as you say "the existing licensing system is not screening out (a) people who should not have firearms, period, and use them to cause harm, and (b) people who are negligent and fail to keep their firearms out of the hands of people who use them to cause harm." It is unlikely any similar efforts in the US would be effective, especially in light of the Heller decision, which give citizens (in DC so far) the right to keep a loaded handgun in the home.

The problem is the demand for firearms in Canada.
The demand for firearms in Canada will not directly decrease if drugs are legalized.

The question is what is driving demand for firearms in Canada? If it is to be better armed that the other gangs, the solution is to concentrate on the elimination of gangs, not their chosen tools.

If legalizing drugs causes the gangs to go away, that would help. If it causes the gangs to switch to other illegal activity, it won't.

The key is eliminating the demand for guns.

[iverglas]

29. for the love of fuck

Can you not TRY to follow the dots?


If, as you say "the existing licensing system is not screening out (a) people who should not have firearms, period, and use them to cause harm, and (b) people who are negligent and fail to keep their firearms out of the hands of people who use them to cause harm." It is unlikely any similar efforts in the US would be effective, especially in light of the Heller decision, which give citizens (in DC so far) the right to keep a loaded handgun in the home.

I don't give a flying fuck about the Heller decision, I would have thought you would have noticed.

A smelly decision by a stinking right-wing judicial body doesn't impress me.


The problem is the demand for firearms in Canada.
The demand for firearms in Canada will not directly decrease if drugs are legalized.

What planet are you living on? Obviously not the one with a country called "Canada" to the north of the one called "the United States of America".

What cathedra are you speaking ex? "The demand for firearms in Canada will not directly decrease if drugs are legalized" -- sez you.

Forgive me if all I hear is a gnat buzzing.

The demand for HANDGUNS -- again, the subject of the discussion here -- and the criminal use of HANDGUNS -- comes overwhelmingly from individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade.

What aren't you getting here?


The question is what is driving demand for firearms in Canada? If it is to be better armed that the other gangs, the solution is to concentrate on the elimination of gangs, not their chosen tools.

And yet ... if they didn't have those "tools", they'd find it pretty fucking difficult to do what they do.

That being the bit that everyone here is intent on pretending not to notice, thereby making themselves look like fools. Or deceivers.

Ever noticed how agitated some people are those days about the tools that Iran may be building? You know, those nuclear bomb tools.

Heavens. Nobody should be worrying about that. We should be concentrating on eliminating Islamic fundamentalism or some such thing, right?


The key is eliminating the demand for guns.

Funny how for other things the key seems to be to eliminate the supply.

But I'm sure you think it should be perfectly legal to sell laetrile to the fools and desperate souls who think it will cure their cancer. We shouldn't outlaw laetrile; we should educate all the foolish and desperate people and the US should institute a universal national public health insurance plan ... and meanwhile, shake our heads and cluck a lot when the ones who haven't been educated yet, or can't afford medical treatment, die of curable cancers because they relied on laetrile ...

And of course we have relied on public education to reduce traffic deaths resulting from drunk driving. Outlaw drunk driving?? Certainly not. That would be pointless. We need to educate drunk drivers. And shake our heads and cluck a lot about the people they kill.

Yup, we should sit on our hands while bystanders and children are shot dead by criminals with handguns ... and do nothing to keep the handguns out of their hands. Nope, we must pontificate on discussion boards about root causes, and shake our heads and cluck a lot about people shot dead by criminals with handguns.


If drug traffickers don't need firearms to conduct their business, WHY ARE THEY SO BENT ON ACQUIRING THEM, and why do they use them so often??

Silly billies. They could save a lot of money if they just used penknives.

[DrCory]

40. And what of the decision...

by the court in the case Bush v Boumendiene?

"A smelly decision by a stinking right-wing judicial body doesn't impress me."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. If they hadn't banned smoking inside restaurants this woman might be alive.

[iverglas]

31. read the thread, Davey

It's been said. By me.

Ding ding.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Didn't mean to plagiarize. It really was an original thought when I wrote it.

Hope your family is doing better.

David

[krispos42]

37. Canada needs to simply go all the way and completely ban handguns

Why not, at this point?

Canadians can't carry legally care them in public or own them in private for self-defense; therefore nobody in Canada is using them for self-defense. Canadians can't point to any incident where armed citizens fended off attackers.

Canadian gun-control advocates have managed to set up conditions where guns are never used to protect lives, and are always used to take lives. Then they point to this latter condition and use that as an excuse for even more control.



At this point, ban them all. Confiscate them and sell them to us down here in America. We'll be happy to buy them. Or throw them in a furnace and recycle them into Ford Crown Victorias and sell them to police departments.

Whatever gives you a sense of accomplishment.



I'm truly curious to see what happens.

[spin]

46. According to this link there are only 1.2 million handguns...

in Canada. In the U.S the estimate is 76 million handguns.

And the laws regarding handguns are much more restrictive:

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

With so few handguns and the fact that they are registered, it should be no problem to confiscate them.

Canada is not the United States. If their government decides to confiscate handguns it's fine with me. I'm surprised that they haven't already.

Perhaps they will eventually take away rifles and shotguns (hell, there are only a total of 7.4 million firearms in Canada). Then they will outlaw fixed blade knives and locking folding knives. Eventually they will prohibit pointy kitchen knifes. (Kitchen knives are often used in domestic disputes.)

It will be interesting to watch and a good lesson for American gun owners.