http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051207/elxn_martin_handguns_051208

Martin proposes sweeping ban on handguns
CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal Leader Paul Martin is proposing a sweeping ban on handguns to combat growing gun-related violence in Canada's cities.

"Handguns kill people -- that's why they exist, and they're taking too many Canadian lives," said Martin during his "safer communities announcement" at a school near Toronto's violence-plagued Jane and Finch area this morning.

Details of the Liberal proposal include:

a new 250 officer unit from the RCMP dedicated solely to fighting gun-related crimes, as well as other organized crime and drug trafficking;
75 new officers at Canada Border Services to combat illegal importation of handguns from the U.S.;
tougher sentences for gun-related crimes, by changing the Criminal Code to double the mandatory minimum sentences for such crimes;
encouraging community-based gun prevention, with help from a $50-million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund to focus on youth at risk;
waving the re-registration fees for owners of long guns in order to encourage compliance with the Canada Firearms Program; and
a gun amnesty and buy-back program that draws from an Australian model, including a gun stoppers initiative aimed at ensuring the turn-in of illegal weapons.
"Taken together, these are reforms designed to reduce crime, to combat gun violence in our cities and better protect Canadians," said Martin. 

A handgun registry in Canada already exists and has been active for more than 60 years. But a rash of gun-related violence in some of Canada's major urban centres has prompted Martin to promise even stricter laws. In Toronto, gunfire has killed 50 people so far this year.

Handguns are currently classified as either restricted or prohibited. Canadians can get a handgun license by proving the weapon is part of a collection, in target-shooting competitions, or for target practice.

The announcement will likely be popular in vote-rich urban centres. But it could anger voters in rural areas, already upset at the Liberal-created registry for long guns. The registry, created 10 years ago, was supposed to cost just $2 million -- but the price tag continued to rise to more than $1 billion.

Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Professional Police Association, said he agrees with most of the Liberal proposal.

"Adding 250 RCMP officers to join with provincial and municipal police officers, to address the issue of street gangs, organized crime, and tracking the illegal entry of guns, I think that could do some good work," he said on CTV's Mike Duffy Live.

"We've seen its success in the past, when they created a taskforce in Quebec to fight against bikers. It did succeed. To put 75 more people at the borders is also good thing, but we need to see RCMP officers patrolling borders, too."

He disagreed that a sweeping ban on handguns would be very successful in combating urban violence, considering that most guns used in shootings are obtained illegally. He said the answer is tougher sentencing ・ beyond the doubling of minimum sentencing included in the Liberal proposal.

"It's illegal guns, stolen guns, and those violent criminals have to know for a fact that if they get caught with a gun, they're going (to prison) for a long time," Cannavino said.

Before the Liberal minority government collapsed, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler tabled legislation that includes an increase in the minimum sentence on some gun crimes, and tougher parole rules for gun crime offenders.

There are already more than a dozen gun crimes that carry minimum sentences of one to four years, and calls for stiffer penalties have won backing from police groups.

Critics

But some legal experts believe that tougher sentences will do little to end the violence. In fact, they say such laws will merely strain an already over-taxed court system and put more minority youth behind bars.

"There's this real concern out there that we're moving towards this pander to law-and-order types' (trend),'' Bill Trudell, chairman of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, told the Canadian Press.

"We know it's not going to work.''

Dudley Laws of the Black Action Defence Committee, a group devoted to ending gun violence in Toronto, has also disagreed with tougher sentencing.

"What we want is for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to empower and give the community the capacity to make the immediate and intense intervention that is required to deal with our young people," he said.

But Wendy Cukier, co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control said existing laws limiting the availability of handguns and the use of rifles and shotguns have been effective.

"Five hundred fewer people are killed with guns today than 16 years ago," Cukier said Thursday on CTV's Canada AM. "There's no question that stronger gun laws in Canada have made a big difference. In spite of the surge in Toronto over the last year, gun murders are the lowest in 30 years. ... Murders of women with guns are down 66 per cent.

"So it's really misleading to suggest we're not getting anything for the investment in gun control."

Gun lobby

Not surprisingly, reaction from the firearms lobby to the proposed ban has been negative.

"It's going to accomplish nothing. There's already all types of legislation and illegal use of handguns is out of control," Wayne Fields, president of the Law-Abiding Registered Firearms Association, told the Canadian Press.

"They have to concentrate on the illegal drugs and the criminals that are using the firearms -- get them off the street. They're not going to get rid of guns, it's impossible."

But former Liberal premier Brian Tobin said it's important that the government takes a clear and strong position with respect to handguns.

"It also matters when you have the National Rifle Association showing up in Canada and deciding to endorse the Conservative campaign in this case, and try and inject their agenda ... into the Canadian electoral process."

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, meanwhile, issued a statement Thursday saying he supports tough gun control. He added that a Conservative government would:

crack down on illegal gun use;
stop the flow of illegal guns at our border; and
bring in mandatory minimum prison sentences.
"The Liberals have done none of these things," said Harper in the statement. "They must take responsibility for the growth in gun crime on their watch. Gun crime has spun out of control because they have failed to do anything to reduce gun crime."

NDP Leader Jack Layton said he would have to study the proposal before commenting, but indicated that he would support tougher gun controls.

"I have said for many, many years -- handguns have no place in cities," Layton said when asked to speak to the issue at a Dartmouth, N.S. press conference this morning.

He said his party had brought up the problem of guns "flooding into the country" repeatedly during the last Parliament, but that "nothing was done."

"If we're finally starting to see some action on it, we'll take a look at what's proposed," said Layton.

There is no purpose for handguns in Canada. Anyone caught with a handgun should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In fact, I would start chopping off hands if I were in charge.
I am completely outraged by the escalation of gang culture in Toronto especially. What does it accomplish? It just kills kids.
Why can't hip hop culture see how fucking stupid all this shit is?
Maybe I'm being a little too general in that statement but it does seem like a strange coincidence that as Toronto hiphop continues to build in momentum, so does urban gun violence.
I'm not even condemning the music. In fact, I seem to enjoy a lot of Canadian hiphop. I think they are really coming into their own as far as creating a scene that should be recognized on a global scale. I just don't understand why they need to bring the "thug" attitude. Artists like K'os seem to be able to function without all that baggage...

(this is not in any way about race. we have just as many white kids as any other culture participating.)

It's a good idea. When I was in Toronto in September the murder rate seemed pretty high

I totally agree that there should be zero tolerance for people caught using guns for crime. The thing is, there is already strict regulations in place for hand gun owners. The people that are using guns for crime are using illegal guns. This will not stop just because hand guns are all of the sudden totally banned. Does anybody actually think that someone who has an illegal gun now, will go and turn it in if they become banned?

The gun owners that are using them for target shooting and gun collectors are the ones that will be punished with the gun ban.

This is a misguided policy that is clearly being used for vote buying in the important Toronto area and will have little good effect in the end. That is if it even goes through at all. I believe all of the provinces would have to sign on to get this to pass.

The money spent to do this would be much more effective if spent on enforcing existing gun regulations and punishing those caught with illegal guns to the full extent of the law. I believe I read that they plan on spending $30 million on this ban. If it's anything at all like the useless gun registry that number will become astronomical at the end of it all. They planned on spending $2 million for that and in the end they somehow managed to spend $2 billion for something that has next to zero use.

I agree with this. There are some shortcomings, but it's definately a step in the right direction. Yes, most of the guns used in violent crime are obtained illegally. However if the sale of handguns is banned, that is one avenue of obtainment that has been closed. If it saves 1 life then i'd say it's worth it. Like Chris said, handguns have no place in Canada. There is absolutely no fucking need for them. Handguns aren't used for hunting.
I also agree that minimum sentences should be doubled. There should be a zero tolerance stance against ALL gun related crimes.

I have no sympathy for the plight of the legitimate handgun owner. What do you need a gun collection for? What do you need target practice for? The only people that should have a right to own handguns are cops. Period.
They are designed to kill people. Nothing more. They are unnecessary for any sport (i don't even agree that guns in general should be used for hunting). They serve no purpose other than to kill.
I can't collect nuclear warheads so why should you be able to collect handguns. It is a big delta but the end result and purpose of both objects is to kill people.
I'm not kidding when I say that people should have their hands lopped off for carrying illegal firearms. You carry a tool that is designed to kill, we should be able to take away your ability to do so. No jail time, no tax dollars wasted, just lop off the hands and set em free.
I'm so sick of seeing the story about stray bullets killing civilians that I've lost all sympathy for anyone that chooses to break that law.

That may be a bit cruel and unusual...but if that's what it takes . Seriously though i do agree with you. I feel nothing for the legitimate gun owners. Hunting is a hobby that considers death to be it's primary goal. Unless you truly need the food, there is no reason for hunting of any kind to exist.
And while i'm on the topic of hunting, why is it socially acceptable to shoot an animal with a rifle, or trap one with a snare, yet it's not acceptable when a kid goes out and tortures or murders a cat or some other small animal? Why do we recoil with disgust when we hear stories about that? But millions of people take to the woods every fall and winter and do the same thing...and don't tell me it's different. Have you ever HEARD a rabbit caught in a snare, or one that's been shot but isn't dead yet? It sounds like a baby crying. It breaks your fucking heart. Yet...this is ok with most people. Hunting as a sport disgusts me. The only skill in it is being in the right place in the right time. Sorry to get off the topic, but i don't feel that it's something that should be celebrated. But idiots around here talk about killing a deer like they won a fucking gold medal in the Olympics.

So the only civilians with guns will be the criminals, right?

Sounds like a safer place already.

Yeah cause the obvious solution would be for every citizen to arm themselves. Clearly that's worked in America's favour so far.

No, affording citizens the right to arm themselves is.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. You can kill someone with all sorts of things.

Our citizens are killing each other with AMERICAN handguns. Your civil rights are working so well that they are reaching across our borders to kill innocent people. I guess the only plausible answer is to hand out a glock with the ultrasound when someone is having their foetus scanned.

I'm not disputing that firearms serve a purpose. For hunting and even legitimate protection purposes, rifles are sufficient. However, handguns and automatic weapons are complete overkill (no pun intended). They serve no purpose but to maximize carnage.

Mike, I somewhat agree with you. I don't mind hunting with a rifle because it inevitably ends up in accidental shooting of other hunters. That makes me laugh. Especially that guy that strapped a rifle to his dog and videotaped it while the dog shot him. Fuck that was funny. But traps and firearms are really no way to hunt. If you want to do it for sport, use a bow and arrow. I don't have a problem with the killing of animals. Hell, if it doesn't bleed, it isn't food. And at least around my area we have to cull the deer population because it gets out of control. We have problems with ticks (lyme disease) and just the simple fact that they run out on the highways all the time. This ends up killing the deer and possibly many people.

So when a Canadian kills a fellow Canadian with an American handgun, is it the fault of the American handgun, or Americans in general?

Well the same can be said for nuclear weapons, but you can't go to the Walmart and buy weapons-grade plutonium.

I don't see why you think allowing people to arm themselves is benefiting them. Where do you think the people who commit crimes with guns are getting those guns from? They guns aren't falling from the sky with little parachutes. Criminals didn't rob the Smith and Wesson factory. North Korea isn't shipping crateloads of guns over to arm our petty thugs and gangsta wannabes. They are getting the guns from Walmart and Kmart. Or they are stealing them from their parents or other people who bought them at Walmart and Kmart thinking they were buying something to protect themselves. The reason there are so many illegal guns out there is because everybody thinks they have the right to arm themselves, when really the only reason they have to fear guns is because they've armed themselves to the teeth.

If you remove the legality (IMO it should be all guns, but i would settle with allowing people to have hunting rifles, albeit grudgingly), along with increasing the penalty for having a gun illegally, there is no doubt that it will curb the gun murder rate. Obviously it won't eliminate it completely, at least not within our lifetime. That would take a fundamental shift in the general concensus regarding firearms, and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. The American idea of having the "right to bear arms" isn't working.

I'll see your eyeroll and raise you an angry face

I've felt safer here ever since our govt launched a massive compulsory gun buy-back scheme following a mass shooting. Gun crime has gone down.

A little from column A and a little from column B.

Good times.

....

It's true. People kill people. And you can kill someone with all sorts of things.

But when's the last time you heard on the news, "Today a man walked into a local grocery store and went on a mad knifing spree. 25 innocent people were stabbed to death before the knifeman was taken down by the police."

The point being that, yes, people do kill people but guns make it really easy to kill people.

Are you comparing handguns to a nuclear bomb?

You have a right to bear arms, not blow up a city in self defense.



Do you really think that every gun used in a crime was legally owned? Is the criminal always the true owner?

People get guns illegally all the time. They're still gonna have theirs. This law would only affect people who legally obtain their handgun. I don't see how this law benefits anyone other than criminals.



See, even you agree.



In America, they should feel they have the right to arm themselves. It's in our Bill of Rights.

I don't fear guns. I fear criminals with guns. Some people don't think a baseball bat is an effective weapon against an intruder with a gun. Your reasoning for the gun fear may be true, but guns will always find their way to people who want them, laws or not.



Isn't a hunting rifle just as dangerous? It's a gun.



I don't think you can prove your first statement there right yet.

The right to bear arms in America has it's downside, but I believe it is a right that a free nation should grant its citizens. I choose freedom over safety.



If you were to ban the right to assemble, I guarantee a few less crimes would be logged in a given year. That doesn't make it right.



And none from column Canadian? Really?



I have never, in my life, heard a story like that.



The guy from the grocery store probably killed the first person pretty easily. Human flesh is no match for a steel blade.