Or words to that effect, since we all know perfectly well that although the mayor of Toronto may be able to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens, she is never going to prevent criminals obtaining them:
Olivia Chow came out Monday pledging to support a handgun ban if she’s elected mayor.
“There is no reason why anyone needs a handgun in a big city like ours,” Chow said.
“We need better gun control. We have a mayor that for the last four years justified the use of guns, he opposed the long gun registry. What I want to do is work with big city mayors to tighten control so there is no illegal guns coming from the States.”
I fully agree witn any public official that is prepared to work toward strict gun control. There is absolutely no valid reason for anyone but those involved in law enforcement to have hand guns or any other guns. Certainly we need to work toward a society that genuinely works toward freedom and that includes freedom from possible assault with a deadly weapon.
You obviously are unaware of firearms that are used in legitimate a legal sporting activities. Just as archery is a respected sporting activity, so to should be target shooting. Fact is that there is even a Winter Olympic sport, the Biathlon, that includes firearms in a target shooting component of the sport.
I could also point out that there are several Olympic sports that make use of what used to be weapons. The javelin through, the discus through, the hammer through, and archery all come readily to mind. So where is the justification for treating firearms so differently? Especially when we remember that it is not the gun that kills, for the gun is an inanimate object. It will do absolutely nothing on its own. Fact is that it is a person that kills, sometimes with a gun, sometimes with a knife, sometimes with a rope. Perhaps we should also ban knives and ropes while we are on a socialist anti gun crusade.
A person being carless with a javelin, a knife or an archery set can indeed be dangerous.
Yeah, they could run at you with one of those. 😉
People have been killed and injured on javelin fiields, accidentally of course.
With respect to the other implements:
1. People are murdered by killers using knives.
2. People have also been killed accidentally, and murdered, by people using bows and arrows and crossbows.
“Carless”. I was just kidding you. 🙂
Got it. Ribbing accepted. Of course, if one was carless then vehicular homicide would be difficult.
I have been a duck and pheasant hunter and also a target shooter. So were many generations of my family. At some points that is what fed the family. My firearms are all registered and secured, and I am fully qualified. Why would I have my shotguns or rifles taken away? What about those persons needing a gun for protection from wild animals in the bush? You don’t even want to think about going more than fifty steps into the bush from a mining, logging or prospecting camp in many places in Canada without carrying at least something like a old .303 with a 180 grain bullet or a 30.06 or 7mm magnum. What about a First Nations trapper, or First Nations band members exercising their right to hunt on their land? What about the rancher who carries a Winchester or Marlin in a saddle holster to protect his cattle and horses, and himself, from bears, wolves or cougars? What about trap and skeet shooters?
I don’t need a handgun, although I am trained in how to use one, but there are lots of other people out there who put long guns, both rifles and shotguns, to very good and proper use. Are you aware that many police officers are also hunters and target shooters in their off-duty hours?
Handguns are already strictly regulated and controlled. In fact. all guns are. You can’t get a long rifle without submitting to a rigorous background check that includes the requirement to get consent from ex-spouses and girlfriends/boyfriends.
Also, do you have any idea what the requirements are that have to be met to transport a handgun, by a licensed sport shooter, anywhere?
Criminals will just get the guns they want regardless of any amount of gun control. That has been pretty clear for a long time. Also, Olivia Chow, if mayor, will have no ability to stop the cross-border smuggling of illegal guns.
Careful what you wish for Frank.
Your logic could be used to ban all vehicles in cities, limit those remaining to those only capable of posted speed limits and force carpooling. In other spheres all alcohol could be banned, caloric intake regulated and sugars banned. And on and on…
When the progressive fascists get the bit in their teeth, we will all haves oxen gored.
I am with Frank on this one. There is no reason to own a handgun if you are a city dweller (outside of a target shooting range).
Kate,
A big part of the problem with the gun control debate is the profound ignorance of the law.
There are only two grounds for permission to own a handgun in Canada: shooting at a certified gun club and being a verified gun collector (who are carefully vetted by the RCMP).
Before being allowed to purchase a handgun, the applicant needs to complete a firearms acquisition course and then a second more detailed course for handguns. Then the applicant has to join a registered gun club (waiting lists are up to two years) which requires a weekend safety course and the individual approval of each director. Then the club safety director has to verify to the provincial firearms officer that the applicant is a member in good standing.
A quick process would take between 9 months to two years.
Gun crimes are rarely committed by legal gun owners.
Well and good. Highly restricting access means there are fewer guns to steal. It also means that there are fewer guns ‘at hand’ for people to commit crimes of passion with. Yes, you can kill with a knife too, but it is much easier to kill more people with a gun.
Stabbings and beatings combined equal half of all homicides. Firearms account for 25 to 30% and has been in steady decline.
If ease and amount of killing is the prime factor, bombs are best and don’t forget the propane tank and a road flare.
I don’t know how long it takes to unlock a gun locker, remove a trigger lock, unlock an ammunition locker and then load a gun -but I suspect that the sum of all those actions constitutes premeditation under the law. Each of these storage precautions are required by law.
The problem is, Frank was talking about “any guns”. He did, however, talk about freedom from assault while completely omitting any discussion about the freedom to defend oneself.
I didn’t even talk about low-power pellet guns, or paintball guns (which still require strict safety procedures).
Vincent
You are such a card.
Thank you.
Your response is completely out of line. I definitely believe that due to the irresponsible actions of some who have vehicles that can readily grossly exceed the speed limits some laws providing appropriate penalties need to be set down. The same applies to persons who believe they can drink and drive. If you disagree I would ask what your thoughts would be if you or someone in your family was the victim. No one is suggesting the “progressive fascists” take control but you must definitely realize there are many who are quick to place their so-called recreation over and above the safety and consideration of others. In my view persons convicted of impaired driving should lose their licence for at least one year and any vehicle they use be forfeited to the crown unless the owner can prove it was stolen.
I think it is illegal just about everywhere to operate a gun while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Further, you are likely going to get more than a one year licence suspension and forfieture if you do.
Sorry you feel that way Frank. I presented what I believed to be a fair and comprehensive argument using your theory in different circumstances.
There are about 290 million guns in the States. If I were living in the States, I would own at least one gun to protect myself and my family. I don’t believe we have a gun problem in Canada. Canada is a safe country to live.