Failure of Canadian Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Nitrogen, Feb 13, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nitrogen

    Nitrogen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Sachse, Texas
    Check out this post. A major Canadian newspaper backs up a hypothesis that we already know: Gun control only disarms law-abiding citizens.

    http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/02/canadian_column.php

    Canadian column on failure of their gun control
    Posted by David Hardy · 13 February 2006 09:22 AM

    From the National Post (subscription only) comes an editorial that points out that as gun density declines, crime rates increase.

    COMMENTARY: Gun control's unlikely new enemy
    National Post (Canada)
    Editorials; A14
    February 13, 2006
    Byline: Lorne Gunter

    Two weeks ago, the very anti-gun, pro-gun-registry Toronto Star probably did more than any other media outlet to undermine the recent call by the Ontario provincial government for a ban on all handguns in the province.

    On Jan. 28, the Star ran a map of southern Ontario and cottage country showing the number of legal firearms per district.

    Using statistics obtained from the federal firearms registry, the paper showed its readers that in the areas around the town of Orillia, there have been up to 47 firearms licences issued for every 100 households -- the highest rate in the province. Large numbers of licences also have been granted around Durham and Orangeville, Cambridge and Peterborough.

    Indeed, that swath of Ontario from Lake Huron in the west to Georgian Bay in the north, around Lake Simcoe through Hastings to Prince Edward County, is veritably bristling with guns.

    Niagara County, too, and Simcoe, Oxford and Wellington -- guns everywhere.
    Most districts nearer Toronto have between four and 12 registered gun owners per 100 homes. Much of the 905 area has between two and six.

    But right down in the centre of Toronto, standing out like a strobe light, were several neighbourhoods with two or fewer firearms licences per 100 households. From Pearson International Airport to the Don Valley Parkway, and between the 407 and the Lake, Ontario is nearly gun-free, according to the Star.

    But of course, that is exactly where most gun crimes take place. The conclusion to be drawn from the Star's graphic is obvious: The most sensational shootings and highest number of gun murders in Ontario occur within the area that already has by far the lowest levels of legal firearm ownership.

    With this one map, the Star unwittingly proved correct those who argue that a ban on all legal handguns will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Toronto. It also debunked all those, such as the Ontario government, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Star itself, who have made a ban the lynchpin of their crime-reduction strategies.

    The simple, inescapable truth is that most firearms crimes being committed in Ontario are not being committed with legal guns, so no ban on legal guns -- whether handguns or shotguns and rifles -- is going to have any impact on crime rates.

    Most gun crimes are not being committed by gun owners licensed under Ottawa's registry scheme. So no campaign to make licensed owners surrender their firearms in a mass confiscation is going to have any impact either.

    Indeed, from a statistical point of view, a ban on handguns would be the least likely ban to have any appreciable effect.

    Canada's law-abiding gun owners, collectors, hunters and sport shooters own approximately nine "long guns" -- hunting rifles or shotguns -- for every one handgun. In Ontario, the federal registry knows of 1,839,155 long guns, but just 215,372 handguns, and most of both types of these legal guns are not in Toronto.

    If fewer than two in 100 Toronto households contain registered guns, then likely fewer than two in 1,000 contain registered handguns. The Ontario government could send the police to every home in T.O. to collect every pistol and revolver identified by Ottawa's databanks and still seize only a tiny number of handguns.

    And those wouldn't be the handguns being used on the streets anyway.
    After the shooting of more than a dozen pupils at Scotland's Dunblane Primary School in March, 1996, the British government banned private ownership of all handguns.

    The judge who investigated the causes of the massacre recommended against such a ban, but because mass murderer Thomas Hamilton had used several pistols in the commission of his crime, the government in London bulled ahead anyway. It wanted to send a message that it was doing something.

    In the decade before the ban, gun violence in Britain rose 12%. In the decade since, it has risen 64%.
    Handguns are technically banned from New York, Washington D.C. and Chicago, too. But not until those cities ramped up police patrols and began getting tough on criminals did any of them experience drops in gun crime.

    Banning legal handguns is nothing more than a victory for symbolism over substance, for activity over achievement.
     
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,038
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Aw, heck. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
     
  3. antsi

    antsi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Good article.
     
  4. Zen21Tao

    Zen21Tao Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    I read a story a couple of weeks ago where it said that Toranto Canada's gun crime rate has doubled since it has enacted its strict gun-control laws. Rather than actually realizing that gun-control DOES NOT decrease crime they just blamed the incidents on increased influxes of guns from America. :banghead:
     
  5. scott5

    scott5 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    northern New Mex.
    gun control

    The less guns you have, the more gun violence you have!!
    Just goes to show you we need more gun control, and here are 40 more reasons.
    40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL
    1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops
    need guns.

    2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to
    strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per
    100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

    3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but
    statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are
    "just statistics."

    4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went
    into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent
    crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
    5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
    shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of
    fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

    6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

    7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but
    if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

    8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
    smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

    9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no
    defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc.
    Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

    10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
    about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on
    heart surgery.

    11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
    civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine,
    a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
    firearms expertise.

    12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National
    Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
    13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal
    land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms,
    punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.

    14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
    "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations
    herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
    retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are
    reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer
    to individuals,
    but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the
    state.

    15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we
    should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and
    5th Amendments to that Constitution.

    16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of
    course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

    17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren’t
    “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn't have "assault
    rifles,’ because they are military weapons.

    18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
    government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which
    is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940?s, 1950?s
    and 1960?s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus
    stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting,
    no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there
    were no school shootings.

    19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
    handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run
    a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

    20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use
    them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

    21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the
    typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only
    has 20.

    22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers'
    advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

    23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
    butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

    24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass
    killings at gun shows.

    25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
    majority of the population supported owning slaves.

    26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be
    a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

    27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against
    guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

    28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be
    questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of
    Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really
    protected by the Bill of Rights.

    29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
    computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare
    hands.

    30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain
    parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends
    other parts of the Constitution.

    31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a
    cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie
    actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador
    for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control
    summit.

    32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
    larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
    criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

    33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive
    guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

    34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over
    handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

    35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because
    the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court
    says the police are not responsible for their protection.

    36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but
    police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
    building filled with cops, need a gun.

    37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large
    numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

    38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
    preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
    pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

    39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
    defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on
    their duty weapon.

    40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the
    wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
     
  6. Abe

    Abe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    UpNorth
  7. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    If gun control in Canada proved to be "successful," are you implying it would be justified? :confused:

    We should never use the argument that "gun control does not lower crime" to demonstrate the futility of gun control, since it implies that gun control would be O.K. if it did reduce crime.

    Instead, our argument should go like this: "I don’t care if gun control increases or decreases crime. It doesn't matter. Gun control is simply wrong."
     
  8. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    In my province, on a provincial level, there is also a Liberal party. Silly me, I believed them that they are actually different from their national counterparts. Until yesterday when one of their prominent members was on all the radio stations announcing that we'd be worse off without the long-gun registry. He mumbled something about police organizations supporting him on this, cited no sources, gave no evidence - the usual anti-gun stuff.

    On the evening TV news they showed the results of a poll they take every night, they ask a question at the beginning of the news, and show the results at the end. Question, "Do you think you will be less safe without the gun registry." 94% said no, 6% said yes.

    Double win! Not only will the registry be axxed, I learned the true feelings of the provincial Liberals.
     
  9. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,306
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    Looks like the new Canadian government plans to kill their gun registry - see here for details.
     
  10. Maxwell

    Maxwell Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    486
    It would have been a better argument at least.

    What you have with gun control is a double loss. You dont catch the criminal or take away his gun. You label me a criminal and take mine.
    The violence rate stays the same, only now you have one pissed voter and a black market funding even more crime.
     
  11. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    We need that map.

    No, seriously, we NEED that map.

    Actually we need both: here's where the guns are, there's where the crimes are.
     
  12. Savage92

    Savage92 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    98
    It's good to see even the liberal Canadian newspapers are showing the truth on gun control.
     
  13. SDC

    SDC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,116
    Location:
    People's Republic of Canada
    Well, he's said he WANTS to scrap it, but since he doesn't have a majority in parliament, he can't really do anything about it until after an election in which his party gets more than 50% of the seats. The current situation is that the opposition parties can out-vote the Conservatives if it comes up for a vote, so all we can really do is twiddle our thumbs, wait, and hope.
     
  14. v35

    v35 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    902
    If this keeps up Canada may build a fence along its border before we build a fence along Mexico's.
     
  15. mossberg

    mossberg Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    378
    Location:
    Saskatchewan,Canada
    Yeah, right.

    We still have gun control!:(:cuss::banghead:
     
  16. IA_farmboy

    IA_farmboy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    Linn County, Iowa
    I just thought the above was worthy of repetition. I also need to keep that in mind when debates on gun control arise with family and friends.
     
  17. ROMAK IV

    ROMAK IV Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    That isn't true! The people that vote for these laws don't care about crime, since increased crime from "gun control" is used as more justification for even more gun control. At what point of uncontrolable crime, do the politicians say, "Wow! I guess we were wrong on that one!" and recind the laws? From what I have seen, in the US, the only gun laws that go away are those with a "sunset" clause, and that doesn't even always happen.
     
  18. MatthewVanitas

    MatthewVanitas Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,476
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Does anyone have a link to the actual graphic showing the firearms concentrations on the map?
     
  19. 3/325

    3/325 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Washington
    There are a few excuses for why gun control doesn't work:

    1. It needs more time to show positive results
    2. Guns keep pouring in from a neighboring state/county/country with no gun control
    3. We didn't get all the restrictions we wanted

    These people simply cannot deal with the fact that firearms have existed for over 500 years and there is NO WAY to get that genie back in the bottle, period. As long as they exist, firearms will find their way into the hands of people who really want them. Obeying the law is a voluntary act, and some people just don't want to play nice BECAUSE THEY AREN'T NICE PEOPLE!
     
  20. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,453
    Location:
    Texas
    The National Post is Canada's conservative newspaper. It's often called the "fascist" post, by it's liberal detractors. Still it's nice to see a pro-gun article in a Canadian newspaper.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice