Toronto mayor launches petition for handgun ban

[CHIMO]

Toronto Mayor David Miller has launched an online petition calling for a countrywide ban on handguns.

Miller, who has long advocated for a total ban on handguns, said incidents of gun violence, particularly in Toronto, can't be fully addressed without a total ban.

Toronto's executive council spent Monday listening to emotional pleas from relatives and friends of people killed on city streets by handguns.

Miller is calling on all Canadians to sign the petition, which he plans to personally deliver to Parliament Hill in June.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/04/08/tto-handguns.html

http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/index.htm

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Wow--I thought Canada already had a handgun ban.

Shows what I know.

[iverglas]

21. in case you do want to know

There are over half a million legally held handguns in Canada.

That's in a population of something like 33 million.

You can get a licence to acquire a handgun if you qualify as a sports shooter or collector.

Collectors need to know things like what end the bullet comes out, as far as I can tell.

Here's an interesting little tale about a sports shooter:

http://www.nogunnofuneral.ca/news.aspx?id=60
(secondary source)

Shooting suspect had joined gun club in the fall

Globe and Mail 2008.01.16

A Scarborough man accused in the shooting death of an innocent bystander outside a Yonge Street strip bar on the weekend became a full member of a target-shooting club north of Toronto last October.

As such, Edward Paredes, 23, had successfully completed eight probationary shoots under close scrutiny of fellow members of The Grange Firearms Association. The club is one of seven, with a combined membership of about 2,000, that convene at the Target Sports Center in Whitchurch-Stouffville, a combination gun shop and shooting range a 30-minute drive north of Mr. Paredes's parents' suburban home.

"We have the most stringent probation of any gun club in Ontario, I would say," Jason Jenkins, president of the 400-member Grange club, said yesterday, adding that Mr. Paredes joined "in the last 12 months."

That stringency, along with the many regulatory hoops through which Mr. Paredes had to jump before he ever fired a shot at the range, has made the death of 42-year-old John O'Keefe all the more shocking to handgun enthusiasts.

"This is not indicative of sport-shooters," Mr. Jenkins said. "It's a complete anomaly."

There's the makings of a movie there. "But I'm not supposed to be dead!" says the dead guy to that angel guy in the suit. "I'm an anomaly!"

Just like the people shot, and the woman killed, at Dawson College in Montreal. By someone who had jumped through all the hoops and was authorized to possess restricted firearms (including a handgun). Kimveer Gill was an anomaly too.

And then there are all those anomalous collectors who just don't seem to value their collections enough to secure them against theft. All the people who have been victimized by means of those handguns, they're anomalies too.

The anomaly is that there are half a million handguns legally in the hands of members of the public in Canada.

[NoodleBoy]

2. but that's against the 2nd amendment!!

heh heh, I couldn't help myself.

[CHIMO]

67. But

"Unlawful Enemy Combatant" seems to be the opposite of the amendment.

[jody]

3. BO would like that given his affiliation with the Joyce Foundation and VPC or has he rejected them

like he did Rev. Wright?

[iverglas]

4. and here we are

With me just looking for the right place for my 20,000th post. Thank you!

Yay Miller.

Gotta go sign up.

[shireen]

5. how is he going to ban illegal firearms? nt

[iverglas]

6. think carefully now, shireen

Where do illegal firearms come from?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. Usually from criminals

[iverglas]

12. ahhhhh

Do they spring from their foreheads fully formed, like Athena?

You don't actually want someone to think you're this thick, do you?

[Boomer 50]

16. Nope, just from the local hardware store

Unless you plan on banning sheet metal, springs, steel rod, and hobby level or higher machine tools as well.

Making firearms is quite easy. Something the gun banners seem to be unable to grasp.

[iverglas]

20. please try to follow the breadcrumbs

You can probably do that just by reading the headings on the posts, for fuck's sake.

[Boomer 50]

38. Obviously you missed my point.

I'll spell it out for you. Want the "trail of breadcrumbs" to stop as you call it? Fine, instead of whining, get your government to lock down the border. Simple answer. Quit doing nothing but complaining that we aren't solving your problems for you.

The upshot to it is, once you do actually do something like lock down your borders, you'll find that your criminal element will visit hardware stores and auto parts stores to obtain the materials to make firearms. So, at that point, you'll have the choice of banning hardware and auto parts stores, or coming to the realization that the technology to make firearms exists and it isn't going away. But I'm sure, it'll be our fault here in America even then won't it?

Stop blaming America for your country's failures. It gets tiring.

[krispos42]

22. America!

Well, at least pretty soon that will be the stock answer, and the most probable answer to any specific gun trace.

Interesting how the mayor of Toronto has a built-in excuse for when the desire expressed in this petition becomes Canadian national law.

Very convenient for him. Mayor Daly of Chigago has a similar built-in excuse.

Not particularly surprising. 99% of Republicans still think Reaganomics, de-regulation, de-enforcement, globalization, and "free trade" are heaven-sent gifts direct from the finger of god. Even as they pay $3.29 at the pump and burn their warning letters about forclosure for heat. Their excuse is always "well, we just didn't go far enough!"

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

46. excuse me, but it almost seems that you were addressing me

I've probably got that wrong, but I'll try to help you out anyhow.

I've had two of the Guns forums best minds tell me now that illegal firearms come "from criminals". Or "criminal". Whatever.

Now, I don't want anyone to strain him/herself, but if you could pick up those thinking caps and put them gently on your noggins ...

Where did the criminals get them from?

I know, I know. Other criminals.

Now, scrunch up your eyes and try to imagine. Try to imagine a time before a particular gun was born. Then one day, there it is, all clean and shiny. And who has it? A criminal? Well, a gun manufacturer, but okay, not a criminal. And who gets it next? A criminal? Could be! But maybe not. So just keep scrunching those eyes, and see whether you can see the moment when a criminal gets that gun, and tell me what you see. The criminal holds out his/her hand, and suddenly there's a gun in it.

Where did that gun come from?

[CHIMO]

9. By Making

Handguns illegal.

There fore they are illegal.

And thus they are not allowed.

Simple Euclidean Geometry problem and solution.

[shireen]

11. not that simple... my point is that you can't ban illegal firearms because

the people who possess them, the criminals, don't care about laws.

It's hard to ask law-abiding citizens who feel vulnerable to give up their firearms as long as illegal guns and criminals abound.

I think it will be impossible to completely ban guns. But it is possible to reduce the number of guns in circulation by reducing crime rates. That generally happens when there's a healthy robust economy and a fair justice system that provides counseling, drug rehab and job skills training for people in prison. Social justice and a healthy economy, in a society with a large middle-clas,s are the best ways to reduce gun violence.

[iverglas]

13. c'mon, shireen; I know you can do it

Where do criminals get those firearms?


But it is possible to reduce the number of guns in circulation by reducing crime rates.

Okay now, we've got Fire_Medic_Dave having firearms magically appear in the hands of criminals, who then give them to other criminals.

And we've got you having firearms magically disappear once the kingdom of heaven descends and the lion lies down with the lamb.

I dunno, but I don't think it's the advocates of stringent firearms control who are engaging in the magical thinking here.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

18. hahahahahah

That's a good one.

If lying about other posters were against the rules, there'd be a whooole lot more deleted posts here than there are. Pretty much every post ever written in response to / about moi, for starters.

Please don't accuse me of lying about you. That IS against the rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. According to your past posts, they are illegally imported from the US.

Guess you need to pull out of NAFTA and close the border. But wait until after this weekend I really want to see that George St. Pierre vs. Matt Sera fight.

David

[iverglas]

19. Goodness! What was that you were just saying?

I shall just quote you, if I may: "Please don't lie about me."


Investigations show that about 25% of the traceable crime guns in Toronto originate in the US.

Just so's you know.

[Tejas]

24. You of all should have links, so put up or

Investigations show that about 25% of the traceable crime guns in Toronto originate in the US.

Let's see some of those "investigations", would make for some interesting debate.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

29. gentle reader, allow me to direct your lovely gaze

to some things that may have escaped your attention earlier, should you happen not to have researched the issue you have chosen to embark on discussion of, undoubtedly as a result of spending so much time dishing up delicacies at the local soup kitchen and raising funds for widows and orphans that you just can't be expected to do your own research.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=112060&mesg_id=112302

I will note again that the particular links in that post no longer function. You could feel free to contact the Toronto Police Services Board and request a copy of that report.

Now, perhaps you would like to do some of that "or"ing.

And of course, once again I will suggest that you pick a POV and stick with it:

*either* handguns trafficked into Canada from the US are the source of the problem in question in Canada, in which case banning handguns within Canada would be pointless (not really, but go ahead and say it) ... and we should all sit still and shut up, up here, I imagine --

*or* handguns stolen from lawful owners in Canada are a significant component of the problem in question in Canada, in which case ... well, in which case nobody should do anything, I'm sure, but whatever.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the approx 25% figure is in fact a reduction from earlier estimates of the proportion of crime handguns in Toronto that originated in the US. Who knows?

All estimates are necessarily extrapolations from small samples of reality -- since they are based only on firearms used in the commission of crimes and recovered by police, and to a considerable extent on the assignment of an origin based on past experience (e.g. obliterated serial numbers are now believed to indicate local rather than foreign origin).

Enjoy.

[CHIMO]

51. Again

One more time.

It is not about banning illegal ............

It is banning handguns.

A law will make it legal.

So by your logic we should get rid of laws because criminals don't care about them.

Certainly in your world no one needs any law. Because might makes right.

[shireen]

53. get real

By your logic, we should get rid of handguns because some idiots do stupid things with them.
Let's get rid of cars too. No more drunk drivers, cell-phone talkers, dozing off at the wheel, not to mention criminals who use cars as weapons to run down victims.

Guns are not the problem. It's the people who misuse guns that are the problem. If you magically made all guns disappear, humans who want to inflict pain will find other ways to continue hurting and killing each other, with the same deadly efficiency. Maybe they'll become expert users of bows and arrows, or shoot with poison-tipped darts propelled from blowpipes. So your solution will be to ban archery and bamboo tubes too?

We need to deal with the REAL problems afflicting society, poverty and lack of social justice, the real causes of violence. It's astonishing that some gun-ban advocates fail to recognize this fundamental point and focus their energies on tacking the real source of violence, be it gun violence, or knife violence, or chainsaw violence. Violence is violence. Stop blaming the inanimate equipment that's used to inflict the violence.

[beevul]

54. The tip oif the iceberg, shireen.

"Guns are not the problem. It's the people who misuse guns that are the problem. If you magically made all guns disappear, humans who want to inflict pain will find other ways to continue hurting and killing each other, with the same deadly efficiency. Maybe they'll become expert users of bows and arrows, or shoot with poison-tipped darts propelled from blowpipes. So your solution will be to ban archery and bamboo tubes too?"

Well said. The first people to be screaming "ban" guns, are usually people that have little to no idea how guns are made, or how quickly and easily improvised and quite deadly firearms could be made with perfectly legal hardware store items, not to mention what someone with a machinists skill could produce if he or she really tried. They don't know what they don't know.

"We need to deal with the REAL problems afflicting society, poverty and lack of social justice, the real causes of violence. It's astonishing that some gun-ban advocates fail to recognize this fundamental point and focus their energies on tacking the real source of violence, be it gun violence, or knife violence, or chainsaw violence. Violence is violence. Stop blaming the inanimate equipment that's used to inflict the violence."

All true, but doing so would mean those so invested in the war on guns would have done it all for nothing, and admitting it would get egg on thier faces. Admitting that you were wrong, if you are say the brady bunch, would be damaging in a way not easy to predict. Humans fear such unknown things.


Every time a gun banner or gun hater makes the Democratic party look bad, they're making its ability to fight for abortion rights, or social safety net, or an end to war in iraq or several other important things- that much harder. I can hear the bleating about them "voting against thier own self interests" and what they say it means already coming from certain posters as I type this. The problem with that line of thinking is this - it assigns to the people that allegedly vote against thier own self interests all of, and those that made them feel unwelcomed or pushed away from voting Democrat not 1 lick of responsibility. The gun banners and haters right here on DU have in the past and continue in the present to make people question whether voting Democrat is a good idea, and then they play the other side of the street and accuse them of voting against thier own self interests, or being republicans or <insert it here>.

Make the Democrat party seem inhospitable to gun owners in effect turning them away, then flame them for not voting Democrat. Its a neat little arrangement, and its been going on for many years now. Its not hard to see examples of it, if one looks around and is familiar with the players, hereabouts.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

58. "At that stage, rational discussions are impossible."

Ah yes. All who disagree with you are irrational.

So one assumes your view to be, from the fact that you don't respond to anything said to you except by people engaging in mutual grooming.

One person who has been responding to my comments is on ignore, so I'm spared her ramblings.

Gee, I guess I'm the only person you have on ignore, and that's how you know it's me.

Yes, yes, people who are devoted to rational discussion always put people who disagree with them on ignore and then insult them in their mutual grooming activities with third parties. That's the very essence of democratic, civil discourse!

You may not be accustomed to this place. Maybe someone will inform you that when you have someone on ignore, you actually don't get to insult him/her while engaging in mutual grooming activities with your pack members. You got something to say to/about me, you say it to me.

[iverglas]

55. the trick is old, the trick is tired,

the trick is anti-democratic, illiberal ...

By your logic, we should get rid of handguns because some idiots do stupid things with them.

Well, shireen, by your logic, we should all make shit up whenever we have nothing reasonable and decent to say.


If you magically made all guns disappear, humans who want to inflict pain will find other ways to continue hurting and killing each other, with the same deadly efficiency.

Now, can you tell us who would mave made Jane Creba disappear if the person who shot her dead hadn't had a firearm? She was a teenager in the crowd shopping on Toronto's main street the day after Christmas when some people with firearms decided to have a shootout. Would a knife or a baseball bat have been best for that purpose?

How about Ephraim Brown? He's the 6-yr-old who was shot dead in a Toronto neighbourhood when some people with firearms decided to have a shootout. Maybe a poison-tipped dart would have done the trick?

One of the causes of underdevelopment and marginalization in Toronto, as in all similar places, is the intimidation and criminal activity carried on by people with firearms, who quite simply could not do what they do with anywhere near the same intensity without firearms.

But that's the one that calls for us to cover our ears and go wah-wah.

[Tejas]

59. avoided the other 99% of his post, no treat for your trick n/t

[iverglas]

60. "his"?

You're not real good at this reading stuff, are you?

Okay, so there's no public profile. And I shouldn't assume that someone who calls him/herself by a girl's name is actually female. I mean, MaryCeleste was a marine with a wife, which I think precludes being female where he lives, even if not where I do.

So despite your bizarre math, we can agree that I ignored a fair bit of that post.

I ignored shit like:

Stop blaming the inanimate equipment that's used to inflict the violence.

Now, I'm not sure who was being addressed there, but I can 500% guarantee you that it was NOT someone who had done what this shireen was telling him/her not to do.

So whaddaya want? You want me to say that, ooonnne moooorrrreee tiiimmmme?

You want me to say "Stop beating your dog, shireen"?

I'll be happy to. Because that is the only rational sort of thing to say to someone who says "Stop blaming the inanimate equipment that's used to inflict the violence".

There are other things one could say, true. One could say "stop perverting the discourse by accusing people of doing things they have never done, and that only a moron would ever do, thus treating your interlocutors as if they are too stupid to live when you have no evidence that this is this case, and are merely using the words you have fabricated yourself and put in their mouth in an effort to turn someone against them, thus behaving like a vile right-wing demagogue". If one wanted to.

[Tejas]

62. non-responsive (imagine that) so............... n/t

[iverglas]

69. ah, you're looking for something like this

shireen: Stop blaming the inanimate equipment that's used to inflict the violence.

me: Stop making false statements. Making this sort of really quite bizarrely false statement only makes you look like a moron devoid of morals. If you aren't, why do you choose to make yourself look like one?


shireen: Let's get rid of cars too. No more drunk drivers, cell-phone talkers, dozing off at the wheel, not to mention criminals who use cars as weapons to run down victims.

me: Stop making yourself look like a complete fool. It isn't even amusing.


Guns are not the problem. It's the people who misuse guns that are the problem. If you magically made all guns disappear, humans who want to inflict pain will find other ways to continue hurting and killing each other, with the same deadly efficiency. Maybe they'll become expert users of bows and arrows, or shoot with poison-tipped darts propelled from blowpipes. So your solution will be to ban archery and bamboo tubes too?

me: Oh, oops. Already responded to that load of shit.


We need to deal with the REAL problems afflicting society, poverty and lack of social justice, the real causes of violence.

me: Oh, oops. Already responded to the false implication that firearms controls advocates do not advocate dealing with said problems, when they in fact constitute the vast majority of those advocating progressive ways of dealing with said problems, while the gunhead brotherhood (and its women's auxiliary) are rather overly fond of saying things like "put them in prison forever". Or "shoot them".


shireen: It's astonishing that some gun-ban advocates fail to recognize this fundamental point and focus their energies on tacking the real source of violence, be it gun violence, or knife violence, or chainsaw violence.

me: It's, well, not at all surprising that someone like shireen be so totally ignorant of her subject, but it always does surprise me just a little when someone like shireen chooses to spew such uninformed vitriol forth in public. But hey, maybe you can ask shireen to give us a concise dissertation on the failure of David Miller and Toronto council and all of the various individuals and organizations in the city who back his efforts to deal with this "real source of violence" to which she alludes. I would love to be enlightened by shireen on the situation in Toronto's neighbourhoods and on who is and is not doing what to deal with their problems.


Meanwhile, do you actually know something I don't, that you would look at the username "shireen" and promptly type "he"? Idle curiosity, you know.

Anything you're still wanting, you just say.

[CHIMO]

66. I Am Real

Your logic is stuck in a juvenile box. Your logic is based on belief like a free market will regulate itself.

I have not given you any indication of my logic.

I gave you the mayor's solution to his analysis of a problem.

You continually attribute your analysis based on your world.

[bossy22]

7. i'm no fan of this

but if the canadians want this, well, then they get it- there choice. I think its silly and beating up on a minority group.

[bossy22]

8. they tried something like this

during the clinton years- they got a total of 1.2 million signatures saying they wanted to ban handguns

[iverglas]

17. different strokes here

Googling for some public opinion surveys, I found this very unscientific one being astroturfed here:

http://forum.ipscalberta.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=6123&sid=841d440d1eec66b3931d7d1f57d3ca0e

It was at the Toronto Sun website -- the Toronto Sun being what knuckle-dragging illiterates who vote for whatever name the right-wing party is going by today read.

And the results as of that writing? --

And they need the help (so to speak)... as of this writing the poll skews to "YES" (to the question "should handguns be banned") by a margin of 56% to 44%...

Vote, vote, vote...!

Dave.
_________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Even among the knuckle-dragging right-wing illiterates.

A similar one seems to have run at CityNews a year ago:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?p=97687

There's a poll on citynews.ca regarding the banning of handguns/ So far most people are voting in favour of banning all handguns.

And another:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=10616

come on boys, vote no on this thing. It is 64% of ppl so far have voted for banning handguns. Not cool.

Dang, those boys in Alberta must not have time for much else, what with voting in all those polls on line.

And now for something a little more scientific (based on just over 1000 responses though it is) - Jan 2008:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/handgun_ban_splits_views_in_canada/

Canadian adults are divided on whether their country’s regulations regarding firearms should be amended, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 45 per cent of respondents think a complete ban on handguns would be justified, while 46 per cent disagree.

... Other findings: 78 per cent of respondents think gun violence is a very or moderately serious problem in Canada; 55 per cent believe Canada’s gang problem is confined to specific areas and people; 84 per cent call for mandatory jail terms for crimes committed with firearms; 49 per cent think enacting a complete ban on handguns would be effective in reducing gun violence; 74 per cent would introduce new outreach programs to steer youth away from gangs; and 83 per cent would take action to stop illegal gun smuggling from the United States.

Sept 2007 -- that 3% margin of error ...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canadians_ponder_complete_handgun_ban/

Many adults in Canada would support changes to their current firearm legislation, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 52 per cent of respondents think a complete ban on handguns would be justified, since current regulations are not working and guns stolen from legal owners are being used in crimes.

Conversely, 40 per cent of respondents believe a complete ban would be unjustified, as it would affect law-abiding Canadians such as collectors and target shooters.

More recently -- March, in Ontario:
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLONT-W08-T286.pdf
summarized here:
http://www.nogunnofuneral.ca/news.aspx?id=60

Two-thirds of Ontario voters want a ban on handguns, an exclusive Sun Media/Nanos Research poll shows. Support for a handgun ban was even stronger among women with three out of four wanting to see the weapons prohibited.

"The polling shows that there's a very strong appetite for banning handguns in Ontario," said pollster Nik Nanos.

"It's very unusual to get this level of intensity of support on an issue. What it shows is this basically cuts across all groups and a wide variety of Ontarians across the province."

Premier Dalton McGuinty repeated his call for a ban on handguns earlier this year in the wake of a high-profile shooting death of an innocent bystander in Toronto with a legally registered pistol.

A stray bullet, allegedly intended for a strip club bouncer, killed 42-year-old John O'Keefe instantly Jan. 12 as the health store manager walked to the subway on Yonge St. near the Brass Rail.

Oh look; reprinted at the same secondary source:

Shooting suspect had joined gun club in the fall

Globe and Mail 2008.01.16

A Scarborough man accused in the shooting death of an innocent bystander outside a Yonge Street strip bar on the weekend became a full member of a target-shooting club north of Toronto last October.

As such, Edward Paredes, 23, had successfully completed eight probationary shoots under close scrutiny of fellow members of The Grange Firearms Association. The club is one of seven, with a combined membership of about 2,000, that convene at the Target Sports Center in Whitchurch-Stouffville, a combination gun shop and shooting range a 30-minute drive north of Mr. Paredes's parents' suburban home.

"We have the most stringent probation of any gun club in Ontario, I would say," Jason Jenkins, president of the 400-member Grange club, said yesterday, adding that Mr. Paredes joined "in the last 12 months."

That stringency, along with the many regulatory hoops through which Mr. Paredes had to jump before he ever fired a shot at the range, has made the death of 42-year-old John O'Keefe all the more shocking to handgun enthusiasts.

"This is not indicative of sport-shooters," Mr. Jenkins said. "It's a complete anomaly."

A LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER !!1!11!!!1!

[Spoonman]

27. Two things I'm curious about,

along with many others here I'm sure, why you stereotype ANYONE with an opposing view as:

Even among the knuckle-dragging right-wing illiterates.

If someone referred to advocates of gun control as socially impaired retards, with an extreme disconnect from reality, they would be no different from your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Stereotyping

Stereotyping is a way of representing other people. Stereotypes can revolve around a certain characteristic of the group of persons to which they are assigned. The persons of that group may even be reduced to being known and understood through a lens based on the stereotype that results from this, rather than being viewed as individuals. Stereotypes may refuse to recognize a distinction between an individual and the group to which he or she belongs. Stereotypes may represent people entirely in terms of narrow assumptions about their biology, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or any other number of categories.

Causes

Sociologist Charles E. Hurst of the College of Wooster states that, “One reason for stereotypes is the lack of personal, concrete familiarity that individuals have with persons in other racial or ethnic groups. Lack of familiarity encourages the lumping together of unknown individuals” <1>. Different disciplines give different accounts of how stereotypes develop: Psychologists focus on how experience with groups, patterns of communication about the groups, and intergroup conflict. Sociologists focus on the relations among groups and position of different groups in a social structure. Psychoanalytically-oriented humanists have argued (e.g., Sander Gilman) that stereotypes, by definition, the representations are not accurate, but a projection of one to another.

The second question is how this:

Dang, those boys in Alberta must not have time for much else, what with voting in all those polls on line.

Is any different from your spending the time looking all this stuff up?

A simple, straight forward, and TRUTHFUL answer please.
If you are unable to reply in such a manner, please don't bother.

[iverglas]

28. well, who knows why you're asking me?

Even among the knuckle-dragging right-wing illiterates.
If someone referred to advocates of gun control as socially impaired retards, with an extreme disconnect from reality, they would be no different from your post.

You appear to think that I was referring to opponents of firearms control as "knuckle-dragging right-wing illiterates".

Since this would not even make any sense -- given that what I was reporting was strong support for a handgun ban among said knuckle-dragging right-wing illiterates -- I don't rightly even know what to say.

So I'll just repeat what I said in the first place:

... the Toronto Sun being what knuckle-dragging illiterates who vote
for whatever name the right-wing party is going by today read.

So maybe if you wanted to propose calling Globe and Mail readers "socially impaired retards" -- Globe and Mail readers being, on average, well-educated and considerably to the left of the paper's editorial policy, this might not make sense, but what the hell, maybe they're all geeks -- you'd have yourself an analogy.

Do you hold some brief for readers of the Toronto Sun, that you must rush to their defence no matter how incoherently?

I'm sorry, I really am, if this all sounds rude. But just how often must one have ones words misrepresented so badly and in such utterly bizarre ways?


Dang, those boys in Alberta must not have time for much else, what with voting in all those polls on line.
Is any different from your spending the time looking all this stuff up?

Yes. Simple, straightforward and truthful enough for you?


A simple, straight forward, and TRUTHFUL answer please.

Is there some reason why you choose to direct me, in such big letters, to give you a truthful answer? There must be, or you wouldn't do it.

A simple, straightforward statement of that reason will suffice.

It will still leave me wondering how you could have, or why you would claim to have, interpreted my characterization of people who read the Toronto Sun as being a characterization of opponents of firearms control. Unless, hey, I read you wrong, and you really were just standing up for the great unwashed readership of a right-wing tabloid.

[Spoonman]

31. My oh my how you dance!

It is clear to see what you meant in your post.

[iverglas]

33. yes, yes; limpid, it was

I obviously meant that the gun-lickers who advocated banning handguns are ... no, I'm sorry, I just don't get my meaning there, try as I might ...

They're opponents of firearms control, they told an on-line poll that they supported a handgun ban, and I called them knuckle-dragging right-wing illiterates. It's a knot I just can't untie, I'm afraid.

Whoever they are, they must be a very rare breed. And prone to headaches.

[Spoonman]

48. yes, limpid

I use viagra for that problem!:rofl:

[Tejas]

23. Where do the Canucks stand on this?

Not the facitious/drunk/bitter trolls, not gun-nuts or antis either, but everyday people. I'd like to see some input/insight from them, hopefully they'll tell us what's really on their minds.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

41. Try to contain your ego

"Do you EVER consider using your brain before you flap your gums?"


Thank you for your deep thought on the question asked but, sorry, nobody mentioned you. Now if you don't mind, step aside and let somebody else voice an actual response instead of insults and self-flattery.

[iverglas]

56. post 17

I'm sure you've seen it by now: "Two-thirds of Ontario voters want a ban on handguns".

[Tejas]

63. carries as much weight as a cloud of Helium

Your answer compares to FTGFN when he tries to get everyone to believe the majority of DC residents love their gun-ban. Good luck with yours.

[iverglas]

65. You take your mouse

and you move your cursor to the place on your screen where it says "17", and you click on the post next to it, and you read the results of several public opinion polls done in Ontario, a couple of them by one of the top couple biggest polling companies here.

And then you stop pretending that you haven't read that already anyhow, and think of something to say in response to the fact that there are consistently very high levels of support for banning handguns in Canada.

It's not surprising. Public opinion polls consistently show very high levels of support for non-interference in women's reproductive rights, pulling out of Afghanistan, and assorted other progressive causes.

You probably don't know that fewer than 2 out of 5 Canadians who voted in the last election actually voted for the party that is now Canada's Old New Government. Am I right? You wanna know what real Canadians really think, don't be looking at the government that 3/5 (36.3%) of 3/5 (65%) of the eligible population voted for. (That makes less than 1/4 of eligible voters, if you're counting.)
http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/national_results/

The provincial Liberal government where I am may not be my first choice (it isn't), but it represents me and Canadians in this regard a whole lot better than Harper and his horde.

Provincial Liberal glurge:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/news/2008/20080303-guns-bg.asp

McGuinty Government’s Comprehensive Gun Violence Strategy

March 3, 2008

... Calling on Federal Government — Ontario led the charge for tougher gun laws, including increased mandatory minimums and reverse onus bail for gun crimes. Now that the federal parliament has responded with the passage of Bill C-2, Ontario is calling on the federal government to get more involved in fighting gun crime through:

Tougher laws including a handgun ban

* Full federal funding of the 2,500 additional police officers promised nationwide
* Increased anti-gun smuggling security at the Canada-US border.

Can't find a primary source at the moment, but the Star didn't likely get it wrong:

http://www.thestar.com/article/243151

Aug 04, 2007 04:30 AM

"Quebec and Ontario, the two largest provinces in the country want a handgun ban. That's a pretty good place to start," (Ontario Attorney General Michael) Bryant said.

You may not like the answers, but you asked.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Who cares if the Canadians have guns?

Take them away as far as I'm concerned. Maybe we could work out a deal where Americans could buy all of the confiscated firearms at a great discount. More money in the Canadian economy and more firearms owned by law abiding citizens in the US, great deal for all parties concerned.

David

[iverglas]

34. what's that now?

Maybe we could work out a deal where Americans could buy all of the confiscated firearms at a great discount.

Who's confiscating what? You not understanding what you're reading, AGAIN?


I have to say that Miller's petition is one of the most badly written things I've seen in a while, and that if someone really had no clue about the nature of Canadian society and government s/he might really think someone was talking about "confiscation". But why I would imagine that such clueless people are posting at DU, I can't think.

[bossy22]

35. if there was a handgun ban

wouldnt they just stick handguns into the prohibited catagory and grandfather in any of the currently possessed handgun

[iverglas]

39. if there was a handgun ban

... I wouldn't actually expect it to look like what the dumb petition says. I'd expect them to call on me for advice!

I don't see any problem with handguns used by sports shooters being stored at the facility where they are used. There would obviously have to be serious security arrangements, involving on-site supervision, impregnable vaults, whatever, but banks can do it, so I assume gun clubs can do it, and charge their members what it costs.

So that wouldn't rule out ownership of handguns, just possession/storage of handguns off approved premises.

I doubt that grandfathering would be part of what anyone who favours removing handguns from circulation would want to see. The half million handguns now up for grabs would still be there, with no more guarantee that anyone in possession of them was going to ensure they did not leave his/her possession.

Maybe collectors could also retain ownership, but again, just not day-to-day possession; store them in approved facilities, too. Lend them to museums. Donate them to museums and get tax receipts.

But anyone no longer permitted to possess handguns would be entirely at liberty to dispose of them as s/he chose. Including by selling them to the highest bidder in the US on ebay. Or however one goes about conducting cross-border transactions of the sort; through dealers in both countries, I would guess.

Deactivation is another possibility, but as this report notes:

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report2004/firearms_2004_e.htm

firearms that have been declared deactivated, but are easily reactivated and firearms that have been wrongly declared deactivated but remain fully functional.

[Tejas]

61. make up your mind, are you the pot or kettle?

I can't tell. You whine about a 2yr old link, then post a 4yr old link.

(popcorn ready for the straw and puke)

[iverglas]

64. you'll have to explain

The four-year-old link was posted as a reference on the question of whether allowing possession to continue if a firearm were deactivated was advisable. The link said:

firearms that have been declared deactivated, but are easily reactivated and firearms that have been wrongly declared deactivated but remain fully functional.

Is that information out of date? Are firearms that are deactivated no longer easily reactivated? Were the firearms that had been declared deactivated and remained fully functional no longer fully functional?

I have some newspapers around the house that are a good 50 years old. Are the events reported in them no longer true?


Now as far as this whining about a two-year-old link ... I guess that's about as close as we're going to get to you acknowledging that you were pulling your posts out of your bum at that point, and had no idea what you were talking about, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. So you are going to ban handguns but let people keep them.

We must have a different definition of the word ban.

David

[bossy22]

37. Canada

does what the US does...when they prohibit a firearm they usually don't confiscate them from people who were in legal possession of the weapon before the ban....there are canadiens who own machine guns too

[iverglas]

40. you got a different definition of most things, from what I see

I wonder whether there might be an option other than "confiscate" and "let keep".

I wonder, I wonder.

[Tejas]

42. Don't look now but

the amnesty for registration ends May 16th. Need any other lessons on your own laws?

[iverglas]

43. what on earth are they flapping about now??

the amnesty for registration ends May 16th.

Are you talking about the amnesty on registration of long arms, brought to us by executive decree of the right-wing Stephen Harper government?

Do you have some actual idea of what you're talking about?

The amnesty you seem to be talking about exempts owners of long arms from the requirement, under actual legislation, that they register their firearms. Actually, it doesn't exempt them from the requirement; it precludes prosecution of any who don't.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/notice-avis/amnesty_e.asp

An amnesty has been enacted to protect eligible individuals from penalties under the Criminal Code for unlawful possession of a non-restricted firearm for the duration of this amnesty, that is, from May 17, 2006 until May 16, 2008.

The amnesty applies to individuals in the following circumstances:

* Individuals who are in possession of a non-restricted firearm and hold a possession only licence (POL) or a possession and acquisition licence (PAL) for such a firearm, but do not hold a registration certificate for that firearm; or

* Individuals who are in possession of a non-restricted firearm, who do not hold a registration certificate for the firearm in question and who:
o Held a POL or a PAL that expired between January 1, 2004 and May 17, 2006; or
o Currently hold a POL or a PAL that will expire between May 17, 2006 and May 17, 2008.

The amnesty was renewed after its first year, and there is no reason to think it won't be renewed after its second year. The right wing party in government has to cater to its base, using one of those fine smokescreen issues.

The amnesty has SWEET BUGGER ALL to do with handguns. There is no amnesty for handgun registration. Handguns have to be registered, as they have had to be for decades.

Handguns are RESTRICTED FIREARMS (those that aren't prohibited). The amnesty applies to NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS.


Where do you come up with this nonsense? So nonsensical in this case that one can't even tell what it was before it got semi-digested and puked back up ...

[Tejas]

50. know your subject

Your puking this and puking that and the rest of your childish insults towards everyone are old, if you want attention you need to get some new material.



"Canada's New Government proposed reforms to non-restricted firearm registration in June 2006, but until Parliament amends current legislation, the existing requirements continue to apply.

The Firearms Act requires that all firearm owners must be licensed and all firearms registered. In order to legally possess firearms, owners must hold both a valid licence and a registration certificate for those firearms. Given current law, firearms that are illegally held may be seized by the police."

sigh........

For those that are actually interested in how the Canadian gov't handles things:
http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/default_e.asp


eta: bold added for the debate-challenged.

[iverglas]

52. I really just can't believe it

Here is what you quoted -- oh, and by the way, here is what you got it from:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20070516-eng.aspx

Your quote:

Canada's New Government proposed reforms to non-restricted firearm registration in June 2006, but until Parliament amends current legislation, the existing requirements continue to apply.

The Firearms Act requires that all firearm owners must be licensed and all firearms registered. In order to legally possess firearms, owners must hold both a valid licence and a registration certificate for those firearms. Given current law, firearms that are illegally held may be seized by the police.

Now, *I* had an idea of how old that had to be from the fact that these bozos finally stopped calling themselves "Canada's New Government" a few months ago.

So, here's the whole bit in question, including the part you cleverly cut out, which I have boldfaced:

Canada's New Government proposed reforms to non-restricted firearm registration in June 2006, but until Parliament amends current legislation, the existing requirements continue to apply. The Firearms Act requires that all firearm owners must be licensed and all firearms registered. In order to legally possess firearms, owners must hold both a valid licence and a registration certificate for those firearms. Given current law, firearms that are illegally held may be seized by the police. Nevertheless, the amnesty may protect holders of unregistered, non-restricted firearms from criminal liability if they hold a valid or expired license and are taking steps to meet current licensing and registration requirements.

If you don't register your NON-RESTRICTED fucking firearm AS THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO DO, it can be seized as an illegally possessed firearm, just like any other UNREGISTERED firearm. What seems to be your problem here?

HOWEVER, you will NOT be prosecuted if you held a licence at the time.

HANDGUNS are NOT NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS. The amnesty has NOTHING TO DO WITH HANDGUNS.

You brought up the amnesty, now nearing the end of its second year and a sure bet to be renewed, in response to an allegation about confiscation of HANDGUNS if a ban were put into effect. You said:

Don't look now but
the amnesty for registration ends May 16th. Need any other lessons on your own laws?

Let's make this simple.

What the fuck were you / did you think you were talking about?

The amnesty is an amnesty on prosecutions for failing to REGISTER NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS (long arms).

It has nothing to do with handguns. It has nothing to do with bans.

The firearms in question that are ILLEGALLY HELD are "illegally held" because they are NOT REGISTERED, **NOT** because they are banned. They are firearms of a type that is never going to be banned: regular old rifles and shotguns that all good male Albertans keep on hand for shooting varmints and intimidating their wives.

It has nothing to do with handguns, or bans, or the price of tea in China.

It has to do with the fact that UNREGISTERED firearms can be SEIZED, no matter what kind of firearm they are, and owners of UNREGISTERED NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS could be prosecuted, were it not for the amnesty, for failing to register them.

Now you tell me what you think this all means. I'm dying to know.

[maxidivine]

73. I'm not sure I understand, Canadians need a License AND

registration separate from that license? So they can have a firearm that they did not re-register (why the continual registration, why not make it a one-time dealy that occurs when the gun is transferred?) confiscated, yet they will not get into any trouble for not registering it if they hold a valid license? Is that similiar to Illinois' Firearm Owner Identification card?

[iverglas]

74. not as complicated as it sounds

(my paraphrases / summaries)


Licensing -- to ensure that people who acquire/possess firearms are qualified

(a) have taken necessary instruction course
(b) have been found not to be unsuitable candidate for firearms possession


Registration -- to ensure that firearms are not transferred to ineligible people


Licensing firearms owners is fine, but without registration, a licensed owner (who bought at retail, say) could transfer a firearm to an ineligible person and there would be no way of identifying the transfer.

With registration, firearms owners are accountable for what becomes of their firearms. If a firearm registered to them is found in someone else's possession, and no transfer was registered, they will have a problem.

Also, registration makes it possible to determine what firearms are legally in someone's possession if it becomes necessary to remove them, e.g. if a firearms prohibition order is made when they are sentenced for a criminal offence, if their licence is revoked for some reason, if information is received that indicates immediate risk to other individuals or the public.

Obviously, unregistered firearms are not going to be caught in any of these measures.

But the risk of firearms being transferred illegally is equally obviously reduced if legal owners are accountable for transfers of their firearms.


Without occasionaly re-registration (is it 5 years?) the effectiveness of the system would be reduced. There needs to be some verification of all the info associated with the registration.

Registration is very cheap.


yet they will not get into any trouble for not registering it if they hold a valid license?

This is the nonsense situation created two years ago by the Conservative federal government's decision to govern by executive decree. It has created an amnesty for registration of long arms. No registration, no prosecution. *But* the owner must still have a valid licence, or the possession will be illegal, registered or not.


The Cdn Firearms Centre's website is pretty user-friendly for all sorts of info. You can download licence and registration application forms, for instance.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/faq/default_e.asp

... but the answer there about the amnesty is not how I understood it -- it's an amnesty for *registration*, not *licensing*. I dunno! I'll look more into it later after I get this job done ...



Oops -- on re-registration:

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/about-nous/registrar/default_e.asp

Owners of restricted and prohibited firearms that were registered in the former Restricted Weapons Registration System (RWRS) were required to re-register their firearms in CFIS by January 1, 2003, to update the information and link it to their licence.

A registration certificate issued under the Firearms Act does not have to be renewed unless the firearm is modified in a way that changes its class. When a firearm changes ownership, it will be registered to the new owner as part of transfer process. When someone borrows a firearm, they must also borrow the registration certificate for that firearm.

Well, *I* think there should be occasional re-registration!

[iverglas]

75. more on the "amnesty"

Remember that a non-restricted firearm does not include a handgun and certain kinds of long guns.



http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/notice-avis/amnesty_e.asp

Amnesty

An amnesty has been enacted <not "enacted": it's an order in council -- basically, an order of the federal cabinet> to protect eligible individuals from penalties under the Criminal Code for unlawful possession of a non-restricted firearm for the duration of this amnesty, that is, from May 17, 2006 until May 16, 2009.

The amnesty applies to individuals in the following circumstances:

* Individuals who are in possession of a non-restricted firearm and hold a possession only licence (POL) or a possession and acquisition licence (PAL) for such a firearm, but do not hold a registration certificate for that firearm; or

* Individuals who are in possession of a non-restricted firearm, who do not hold a registration certificate for the firearm in question and who:
o Held a POL or a PAL that expired between January 1, 2004 and May 17, 2009; or
o Currently hold a POL or a PAL that will expire between May 17, 2006 and May 17, 2009.

The amnesty permits the following:

* Individuals described in the first circumstance above can obtain a registration certificate for their non-restricted firearm;
* Individuals described in the second circumstance above can obtain a licence and registration certificate; or
* All individuals can:
o deactivate the firearm so that it is no longer a firearm;
o export the firearm in accordance with all legal requirements, including those of the importing country;
o turn in the firearm to a police officer or a firearms officer for destruction or other disposal;
o sell or give the firearm to a public service agency, to a business (including a museum) that holds a licence authorizing the acquisition or to an individual who holds a PAL; or
o possess the firearm before doing one of the things previously described.

The amnesty does not apply to individuals who never obtained a firearms licence.





And to clarify again, at least as I read the OIC:

The amnesty is on *prosecution* for being in possession of an unregistered non-restricted firearm. As I understand it, the possession is still illegal, and the firearm itself could still be confiscated.

This would happen if someone were actually found to be doing something inappropriate with the firearm in question, and not likely otherwise, is my assumption.

[maxidivine]

76. OK, thanks!

I understand it now, registration would be pretty useless if there were no consequences for illegally transferring. The problem I could see with continual re-registration is that for short intervals, like one year or two, it would quickly become inconvenient if someone owns more than a couple of guns, and for long intervals, it would be so easy to forget about that it would be almost inhuman to have serious punishments for forgetting. So a more definite thing like registering on transfer or substantial change to the weapon would really work best.

[iverglas]

77. just fyi

I guess there is no re-registration requirement generally, but there was a specific one when the rules changed -- and the CFC sent out the notices to the people affected, so the onus wasn't on the owner to remember. In that case (restricted firearms -- e.g. handguns: gun club members and collectors), the permit to possess specifies the premises where they can be possessed, I'm pretty sure, so there'd already have been an onus on the licensee to keep the contact info updated.

In case it wasn't clear, there are definitely serious penalties for transferring firearms w/o registration!

[maxidivine]

78. Good news on the CFC

although I am not familiar with the acronym-is it Crown Firearms Commission?

[iverglas]

79. sorry, it was in the previous one

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca

Canadian Firearms Centre / Centre des armes à feu Canada

[maxidivine]

80. What I get for skimming! N/T

[iverglas]

70. can I take it

that you did manage to understand all this finally?

I do hope so. I hate to see anyone as hopelessly confused as you obviously were.

I hate to see the hopelessly confused make fools of themselves in public the way you did, too, of course.

... Oh, well, okay. Sometimes, not.

[Nebor]

44. Let them do as they wish

While I might not necessarily agree with this proposal, it's occuring in a foreign country, with no protection provided by the 2nd amendment. I realize that my opinion on Canadian affairs is irrelevant, unwanted and uninformed (since I don't live there.) But it is their country, and they are free to do as they wish.

Perhaps from now on we could expect this same attitude from iverglas?

[iverglas]

47. okey dokey!

Perhaps from now on we could expect this same attitude from iverglas?

I shall express no opinion on the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US. Iraq isn't my country, so I'll shut up. Ditto on the horrific excesses and abuses committed by previous rulers of Afghanistan. Ditto on every single thing that every other country in the world does, whether to its own people or to somebody else. NONE OF MY DAMNED BUSINESS.

Of course, I know it would be too much for the US to actually practise what you preach on this count ... but that's okay. You're exceptional.

[Nebor]

49. I agree

The United States is out of line in trying to police the world and right wrongs and make a little coin on the side.

But the United States government doesn't perfectly represent all of it's citizens, and my opinion differs from theirs. I feel that nations have no right to dictate the domestic policy of other nations (for example, the US more or less banning abortions in any country that recieves US foreign aid.) So I agree 100%, what goes on within the borders of a nation is none of my business. It's up to them. Iraqis want to kill each other? Great. Sudanese want a couple generations of genocide? Super. I'm more than happy to keep my mind on more important things here at home. I have no interest in being a nosey neighbor.

[beevul]

68. Kick. N/T

[cardinalman412]

71. That sucks...

But, let the god damned sons of bitches do as they wish.

[iverglas]

72. doesn't it just?

Pretty high kill rate in the dungeon today.