December 9, 2005

Gun Control Roundup

Gosh, what a surprise. PMPM announces he's going to "ban" gun control and opinions, both pro and con, appear all over the place.

So, a quick roundup. And you may be surprised by some of the stances taken by some of the bloggers. I was. And was pleased to see that we are all not walking in lockstep with our stated ideologies, because then we'd just be a bunch of Stepford Wannabes, and who needs that?

Dazzlin' Dino looks at what extremely strict gun control has done for the crime rates in the UK.

StageLeft & Treehugger (in the comments) surprise the Hell out of me. I knew there was a reason I liked those guys!

Skippy rescues sanity from the well of Liberal idiocy, and I find myself marking the wall for the second time in... easily a week. Which I find rather mindboggling, since I've been reading him on & off for six months and never agreed with him on points until the election was called... He's got a few posts on this subject, all well thought -out & intelligent. (ed: I just re-read this and realized how stupid it sounds. Skippy's arguments are all usually well thought-out & intelligent, I just rarely agree with them.)
CalgaryGrit quits harping on PMPM to give him kudos. Damn, I thought we had a convert.

Celestial Junk does his rant, with the perspective of a *gasp* handgun owner, and explains just how much red tape he went through to get said *gasp* handgun.

Joe "stick to the facts" Lamerde gives them to us.

Occam's Carbucle is back to Step 1 of the 12-step "quit blogging program" - Much as I'm all for self-help and ending addictions, I selfishly hope the struggle continues past January 23.

Section 15 smelled the coffee. Of course, he probably had a latte (which isn't intended as a slam, as I'm addicted to them myself, but it was a good segue), so he has a different take on a similar theme.

Andrew Spicer wants to endorse it, but is struggling.

Hell, even CBC is having a problem with it.

Personally, I agree with the bulk of the bloggers above. This is politics, pure & simple. Especially when you look at the fine print (from The Globe & Mail, if you can believe it, this policy must REALLY SUCK):

"The Liberals would pass legislation to let provinces make handguns illegal." So it will still be up to the provinces to buy in or not. This must be an attempt to save the few western seats they have, as well as a back door should the magic ban not immediately eliminate gun-related crimes.

"Part of the plan is to pour $325-million into law enforcment, including an RCMP team of 250 officers to combat gangs, organized crime and drug trafficking. And it would hire 75 officers to work to fight gun smuggling." Since there are over 1,000 RCMP positions open, this is peanuts. The 75 officers to fight gun smuggling will be pretty stretched to cover the US border, doncha think?

Anyway, if you find another good post, throw the link in the comments.

Posted by at December 9, 2005 1:46 AM

Earth to Canadian Liberals: Snatching all of the Legal Guns Will Not Reduce Crime from
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and his fellow Liberal Party members in Canada, must be smoking something: "I've come to the conclusion that significant change is needed. I've come to the conclusion that we should ban handguns," Martin told a r... [Read More]

Tracked on December 10, 2005 10:06 PM


This could be a huge blunder for the Liberals, especially if the CBC and Toronto Star reader comments are an indication. The reason this is a blunder (if it is capitalized on) is that it makes the gun registry boondoggle (a "last election" issue) into a current election issue.

Interesting exercise: whenever you hear "gun violence" "gun crimes" "increased sentences for gun crimes" etc. replace "gun" with "gang". And remember, no matter what CBC says, guns are not responsible for deaths. Guns aren't responsible for anything. They can be a "cause", but inanimate objects cannot be responsible for anything.

Posted by: M4-10 at December 9, 2005 2:07 AM

excellent point. Personally, I hate the "guns don't kill people" argument as sophistry, but your point is a good one.

Posted by: Candace at December 9, 2005 2:15 AM

Comartin NDP rips this to shreds:

"Basically, all handguns in Canada are illegal now. The only people who get permits are those who are using them for recreational purposes or those who need it for their own personal safety, and there's not a lot of those that are granted"

Posted by: yyc at December 9, 2005 2:37 AM

Although it's not a new book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Professor Gary Kleck is a good read. It's lessons are timeless and especially poignant considering Kleck was a liberal Democrat and ALCU member who intended to write this book to prove gun control works. His research, however, proved just the opposite. Fortunately, he didn't put his agenda ahead of the facts.

If gun control worked, I'd be all for it. But the facts prove just the opposite. The is something to the old saying, "An armed society is a polite society" after all. When my liberal friends (who like to call themselves "progressive") try to argue that America has a much higher rate of violent crime that other western nations, I always ask them where violent crime is the worst. Guess what? It's in the cities with strictest gun control laws. Go figure!

Posted by: JoJo at December 9, 2005 2:40 AM

Does gun control make things worse JoJo? It's entirely plausible that those cities with the worst crime problems would be those most likely to resort to gun control, and even if they reduced crime they might still end up as the most dangerous. That is, guns might only be an aggravating factor.

Even if it didn't work at all when comparing crime rates before and after implementation, it may be the case that it would only work in conjunction with other programs (social, etc.) That is it would be a beneficial accompaniment to those other programs. Something along the lines of the usual argument about a defenceless populace--that it might be counter-productive to take away lawful guns unless you also devote increased resources against the criminals who retain their guns.

It looks like an interesting book, and maybe you're bringing in assumptions from it that I don't know about. Just that your last paragraph on its own isn't convincing.

Posted by: Wrenkin at December 9, 2005 4:08 AM

Check out the U.S. statistics for crime levels in states that instituted concealed weapon legislation, ie: permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons (usually hand guns). In those states, gun crimes have plummeted because criminals weren't about to attack someone who might also have a gun. In Toronto, or anywhere else in Canada except maybe Alberta and rural areas, gangs and criminals can pull out the gun because they know no one else will have one.

Posted by: CanRev at December 9, 2005 6:09 AM

This time I think the Libs have gone too far.


Posted by: Blair at December 9, 2005 8:30 AM

Did you all catch the nuance in Dudley Laws' response? He said that what the community wants is the gubmit to give them the power and means to deal with the problem themselves. Do you go to a gunfight armed with megaphones and placards? No, you take a gun. My interpretation is that Laws would form his own militia. I think this is worthy of some attention. A hidden agenda is exposed. I posted the relevant quote.

Posted by: Shaken at December 9, 2005 8:39 AM

Are you a law abiding citizen...?
Do you own a handgun............?

Well it's YOUR fault that blacks are shooting blacks in toronto..!!
You the legal hand gun owner are the real criminals..!!
You Will be punished..!!

Paul Martin says so.....!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice day liberal....!!!!!!!!

Posted by: B Wylie Ajax, Ont. at December 9, 2005 8:47 AM

Forget the Substance of it

The Libs know the country is fearful of gun crimes, but rather than substantively doing something about it while they govern, they leverage that fear for vote getting during an election.

Your fears aren't for them to alleviate as a responsible government, they're there for them to foment and leverage for votes.

Posted by: mitch at December 9, 2005 9:00 AM

If this country has laws that after due process and for any reason do not include the death penalty then why do policemen and Brinks guards carry guns?These people are not defending their home and family only themselves and other peoples money and the Only reason they have them is to deter or shoot the bad guy without the benefit of due process.And the person they kill may be innocent!

Posted by: spike at December 9, 2005 9:15 AM

It would appear (oddly) that not only gun-hating Liberals read the news...

Posted by: paradisemafia at December 9, 2005 9:17 AM

They should have an amnesty in Reg Alcocks office to see which gang turns in the most hand guns

Hells angels
Cosa Nostra
Manitoba Warriors [who registered as a charity]
9 deuce
mad cowz

etc etc etc

Wonder if they would get 1,


Posted by: DrWright at December 9, 2005 9:33 AM

The math on handguns: About 2.3 million registered handguns in Canada... a buy out would cost about $1000.00 per gun. And, you thought the registry was a big black hole. By the way, we all know that with a handgun ban, all criminals with handguns will running over to the nearest police depot to turn in their piece... right????!!!!!

Posted by: debristrail at December 9, 2005 9:51 AM

When Citizens are Disarmed and The Police Don't Come...

We are told that the police will to come to protect us, but this is a lie.

Paul Martin says that there is no reason for an ordinary Canadian citizen to be armed. "Trust the authorities" he says. "The police will come to rescue your daughters and protect you from home invasions."

Paul Martin and the Liberals lie.

Posted by: Lost Budgie at December 9, 2005 9:54 AM

Recipy for Gun Violence:

1) Take Socio-Economic problems which produce limited possibilities for a large portion of people in society.

2) Add substance abuse, which provides a revinue resource which surpasses what certain people can make in legal fashions; an industry that rewards the most violent and cruel people.

3) Mix with readily available illegal weapons.

There is no quick fix to this problem. Gun Control doesn't prevent criminals from having weapons and even if you elliminated the illegal sources of hand guns other weapons would take their place (a person who is stabbed to death or beaten to death with a baseball bat is still dead). Tougher sentences on drug offenders doesn't do much because, in a wierd sort of way, becoming a drug dealer makes rational sence; you can make $20,000 a year working at McDonalds (and be taxed) or you can make $400,000+ selling crack to crack-heads (in other words you have to eliminate the market by actually dealing with the addiction problem). Increasing Welfare or UI won't help people get out of their ecconomic bind because welfare fails to solve the lack of marketable skills or experiance that most of its users have.

Essentially, what I am saying is that anything the Liberals, NDP, and (probably) the Conservatives would try to do would be pointless.

Posted by: NoOne at December 9, 2005 10:07 AM

Ban The Bird Flu I say!

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at December 9, 2005 10:15 AM

Stupid just plain stupid, but fitting.

Posted by: AsISeeIt at December 9, 2005 10:15 AM

The new improved Gunstoppers Registry, $300 million cheap, where you can rat out your family, friends and neighbours. This time it really really will work, because the LPC takes this very very seriously.

Posted by: kelly at December 9, 2005 10:41 AM

Debris: "The math on handguns: About 2.3 million registered handguns in Canada... a buy out would cost about $1000.00 per gun."

I've seen reports of between 500k & 600k registered guns - where do your numbers come from?

Posted by: Candace at December 9, 2005 10:58 AM

Prime minister Bozo Banal, risks attracting the attention of Black activists if he continues to persecute Torontos Jamaican community.

He also want's to know if Harper loves children regarding this gun ban

That PM bozo sure has a way with words.

see it at Duke's place

Posted by: Duke at December 9, 2005 11:12 AM

The estimate of U.S. authorities is that 280 million people in the United States own 230 million guns. Every year, 500,000 of those are stolen and disappear into the underworld.

I just pulled this off the CBC item where even they are gagging on martini's stupidy.

It would appear that according to the numbers, there more than a few joint possessions..

The total pop in the US is over 300 million now so there are at least 20 million who are left out and don't have a gun of there own.

Of course if they count the illegals there would likely be another 25 milllion and they would all have guns I suspect. or access to somebodone's

Hey I jes messin whicha

Posted by: Duke at December 9, 2005 11:27 AM

Could be he wants to solidify his base, get some NDP votes and as a bonus, bait and draw out Western Reformers who the CPC has been able to keep quieter this time.

Posted by: steve not in ontario at December 9, 2005 11:31 AM

On the CBC this morning they were saying that, on a per capita basis Canada has more violent crime than the USA. We tend to use knives or clubs, according to the piece.
While guns can be used as a threat, knives tend to be used to slice and dice.
Funny the way reality turns out different than one would expect. Canadians are more violent than Americans...... who would have thought. Are we more gullible as well?

Posted by: truthsayer at December 9, 2005 11:35 AM


I need some conservative negatism to bring me back to reality.

Born in Scotland, raised in Canada, supported the respective national sports teams,Red Sox fan, Cgy sports fan and I vote CPC, I long ago came to the realisation of accepting diappointment.

This morning however, I am closing in on optimism. Yesterdays handgun announcement seems to be coming back to bite PMPM in the you-know-where. When you can't get the G&M or the CBC parroting the party line you might be in trouble.

In his attempt to drive a wedge issue into the CPC na dbrand them as rednecks etc., he has indverdantly portrayed himself to be what he is, a political opportunist who will say anything anytime for the sole purpose of retaining power.

Anyway I am going to enjoy the morning because I am sure by this afternoon, all will be back to reality, Harper "Scary & Angry", PM "Great Leader" et al.

Posted by: Ken at December 9, 2005 11:38 AM

Last night in a Radio interview in Van. Heddy Fry said the Govt. will be giving rewards to people for informing on friends and neighbours about hand guns.
Does this make you feel secure and warm and fuzzy?
These people are turning Canastan into the former USSR.

Posted by: capt_bob at December 9, 2005 11:40 AM

I love this promise. Say goodbye to the Shrieker.

Posted by: kennybunkport at December 9, 2005 11:41 AM

This may be an attempt to get female urban votes but I think it may be more to lay a trap for the conservatives. Just recently they tried to imply the conservatives have strong ties to the NRA. Martin is hoping Harper or hopefully Klein will go balistic and appear like scary rednecks. Harper should respond by saying like the gun registry which cost billions that could have went to hiring police this will not stop criminals from having handguns. The Liberal judges that dont even sentence the minimums for gun crime have to be dealt with. That forces the Liberals to defend the gun registry and their lax attitude regarding the courts.

Posted by: Perkunas at December 9, 2005 11:54 AM

Here's a photo waiting for a caption

Posted by: Brad at December 9, 2005 12:00 PM

Hey brad, if you want some ideas on captioning a photo ... that's what Dukes' place is all about.
no kidding ...

Posted by: Duke at December 9, 2005 12:06 PM

Perkunas is right; the Liberals are laying a trap for the Conservatives. The magic words that the Liberals want to hear out of Harper's mouth are, "I don't support banning handguns." Then the January smear ads write themselves: "The Liberals want to ban all handguns in Canada. The Conservatives, backed by their American friends in the NRA, don't. For the safety of your family, vote the Canadian choice. Vote Liberal."

I'd like to say that even Paul Martin can't be so fundamentally stupid that he'd believe this "policy" will have even the tiniest effect on violent crime, but my estimation of Paul Martin's mental capacity took such a sharp dive yesterday that I wouldn't believe it myself. I think Paul Martin IS that fundamentally stupid and incompetent, and that he and his party have GOT TO GO.

Posted by: Ian in NS at December 9, 2005 12:16 PM

AdsCam Martin's "Ban on Banned Guns" is a cynical ploy with two objectives:
1. An appeal to the human basic emotion of "Fear"; the credulous will accept the fear factor and will look to the "Ban-Banned Guns" hoax as their protector.

2. The other objective is bait; as Greg Weston points out, that the Conservatives will blunder/blurt out a rejoinder which will reinforce the Liberals' line of "SEE/HEAR" that. Conservatives must not blunder.

What is the best approach to overcome this Liberal "agit-prop"? The facts, nothing but the facts. Fighting emotion with facts is a long, tough slog. Start with this: >>>>

Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise (CEUDA) -

Calling for a Border Patrol

Liberals Fail Border Security Test:

Making Handguns Illegal Almost Pointless if Border Remains Porous and Unarmed

DEC 08 ... Customs Officers aren’t equipped with sidearms and Canada has a complete absence of pre-emptive enforcement along the border between border crossings.

Ron Moran, CEUDA’s National President, says, “If the Liberals want to be taken seriously about stopping crime and murders from handguns in Canada, they have look at the flow of those guns across the border; they have to make our border more secure. Simply making handguns illegal is almost pointless when the border is so porous and unarmed. All we hear from them is they’ve spent in the neighbourhood of $9 billion on security since 9/11, but who’s kidding who?”

UNARMED CUSTOMS OFFICERS: Making the border more secure means the border must be armed and there must be a clear and direct mandate to stop people who are armed from entering Canada. Under the Liberals, Customs Policy remains to order Customs Officers to let armed and dangerous persons into Canada with the naïve hope that police will catch them once they’ve been released into our backyards.

Moran asks, “What kind of Government stands up to say it is serious about border security and crime on handguns yet has a Border Policy ordering its Customs Officers to let armed and dangerous people into our communities? Canadians want armed and dangerous felons stopped at the border, not to see the border as a wide-open door, and the border must be armed if we’re to stop dangerous individuals carrying handguns at the border!”

THE UNGUARDED BORDER: 232 roads from the U.S. into Canada are unguarded. Closed RCMP Detachments along the border in Ontario and Quebec, Detachments closed or closing along the border in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and police response times 3 and 4 hours in some areas along the border. The Canada Border Services Agency says 1,600 vehicles forced their way into Canada in 2004 by blowing through Customs, and this happens without CBSA tracking them or their passengers or what they were carrying into Canada, and police don’t have a mandate to catch them. CBSA doesn’t know how many are brought back to the border. 3 Customs boats serving 716 marine locations: 2 in B.C. and 1 in Quebec.

Moran says, “If you’re in the gun smuggling business, you’d be bringing guns into Canada using an unguarded road or by water or just blowing through Customs where the likelihood is that no one would ever chase you. With no one patrolling the border, Liberals can’t honestly expect Canadians will take them seriously about wanting to stop the haemorrhaging of handguns into Canada by simply making guns illegal. Canada needs an Armed Border Patrol to enforce the border between border points. While we agree more needs to be spent on intelligence, there needs to be people on the ground to gather that intelligence and to play a pre-emptive role enforcing the border.” > more

Posted by: maz2 at December 9, 2005 12:35 PM

PMPM is having a bad day. Not much support for his regurgitated (circa 1932) policy on handguns; a dynamic Stephen Harper speech on seniros' incomes/pensions, followed by great scrum on Trustscam and TA DA - Ambassador Frank McKenna being hauled into the White House after Martin's attack on US record on the environment, which is, as it turns out, better than Canada's. BUT Bush refuses to join the company of dunces who've signed on to another expensive lefty proposal. Martin must have got news of it because I just watched him blather and stutter, stammer and brain fart in WIndsor where he was probably also lying to auto workers about his brilliant record on managing their lives.

Posted by: Iron Lady at December 9, 2005 1:02 PM

For all of you who can't understand why Mr Martin has not tried to beef up the border against illegal handgun smuggling, the answer is simple. He didn't announce banning handguns because he thought it would reduce gun crime, he did it because he is a cynical politician only interested in garnering votes. I am at a loss to recall one policy or announcment from Liberals that wasn't designed to pander to this or that group to get their votes. A government where everything is a priority is a government where nothing is actually a priority except, of course, winning elecions. Case in point - Martin will not really go after Adscammers (I believe he has a good idea of who they are) because it will cost him support within his party and ultimately, votes

Posted by: Phil at December 9, 2005 2:00 PM

Ban guns ... can't work
But it sends da right message uh?

Posted by: Duke at December 9, 2005 2:24 PM

A young man named Paul bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. When the farmer drove up the next day, he said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news...the donkey is on my truck, but he's dead."

Paul replied, "Well then, just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "I Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Paul said, "OK then, just unload the donkey anyway".

The farmer asked, "What are ya gonna do with him?"

Paul said, "I'm going to raffle him off."

To which the farmer exclaimed, "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

But Paul, with a big smile on his face, said, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won’t tell anybody that he's dead."

A month later the farmer met up with Paul and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?"

Paul said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $698.00."

Totally amazed, the farmer asked, "Didn't anyone complain that you had stolen their money because you lied about the donkey being dead?"

And Paul replied, "The only guy who found out about the donkey being dead was the raffle winner when he came to claim his prize. So I gave him his $2 back plus $200 extra, which is double the going value of a donkey, so he thought I was a great guy."

Paul grew up and eventually became the Prime Minister of Canada, and no matter how many times he lied or how much money he stole from Canadian voters, as long as he gave them back some of the stolen money, most of them thought he was a great guy.

Posted by: Duke at December 9, 2005 2:26 PM

Regardless of the subsequent media criticism, Martin will still win with the urban voters he wants. All they will remember is the media constantly using the term "handgun ban"--esp. in the stories planted Wednesday by the Liberals that appeared before the Thursday announcement--and give the Liberals credit. They will not realize that a general ban has existed for 72 years, and the steps proposed by Martin add almost nothing to it except taking handguns away from collectors.

And they will not realize there would be no national ban--each province would act on its own.

Despite the nonsensical nature of the non-existent "ban" it will win with those the Liberals want and need to win. The stupid details will escape them.

The CPC needs to follow on the media criticism and use it to hammer the Liberals--make it clear that handguns are essentially banned already, Martin is blowing (gun)smoke, and that the first requirement is mandatory minimum sentences for gun offences (including simple illegal possession) that are: a) serious (i.e. not just almost always 1/3 the face time because of parole); and b) consecutive to time for any other concurrent conviction. If they are not consecutive they lose the additional deterrent effect.


Posted by: Mark Collins at December 9, 2005 2:27 PM

Quiz: You are faced with a rabid violent home invader. Your choices are ..
(a) An armed policeman who isn't there.
(b) You, with a gun who is there.
(c) You, no gun.

Posted by: Duke at December 9, 2005 3:18 PM


I agree. Even last night on the CBC "At Issue" segment (yes, I am a glutton for punishment watching CBC), A. Coyne asked what the handgun ban really meant. Mansbridge let it in, C. Hebert cocncurred.

If Harper and his advisors don't overreact, and let MSM run with this, the ban could be a winner for CPC. As I said earlier, when G&M, CBC and a columnist for the Star are not onside where does that leave you

Using my own analogy from Yesterday, "Double-Secret Probation" didn't work for Dean Wormer, and fortunatley(sp.) for us, it doesn'tseem to be working for Martin.

Iron Lady,

I concur, a bad day for PM. Maybe my previous post will not come to fruition.

Despite derogatory comments about A. Coyne, his laying the foundation comments last night, and his column about daycare seem to be holding true to form. (I can continue to hope)

Posted by: Ken at December 9, 2005 3:52 PM

Just leaked from the LPC election office that the gun amnesty will present each legal gun owner that surrenders their guns an original soapstone carving autographed by Aline Chreitien. The rational is that if it was good enough for protecting the PM's residence then it should be good enough for the GTA.

Posted by: Antenor at December 9, 2005 5:01 PM

CalgaryGrit states that Martin's "gun ban" announcement is smart, bold" and "politically savvy"



In what capacity?

Is it practical?


Is it politically savvy?

Yes, it is, if you considering manipulating the public to be politically savvy.

CalgaryGrit's defense of Martin's announcement is hardly surprising. He's a Liberal, and as such, quite oily.

The mantra "Get power at all costs, keep power at all costs" is applicable with Martin's announcement.

Martin should go one step further and announce that he's going to make all crime illegal.

Now there's a political winner for the uneducated masses.

Posted by: Scot at December 9, 2005 5:38 PM

If you ban handguns...Canada will be safer for criminals.

I think Canada is more like Europe than the US (in which the right of self defense is a given) in that we expect the gov't to protect us.

Here, and in Britain and France, government has done a lousy job of that and as immigrant and criminal gang violence continues to rise, I am skeptical that Canadians will change.

Posted by: steve in bc at December 9, 2005 6:35 PM

I think the wheels are coming off the Liberals' bus. Martin is looking like he's about to implode, and it is painful to watch. Can't help wonder if he isn't being set up by behind the scene Lib operatives who now recognize him as a liability. It's about time. I know I'm biased, but Harper's demeanour has been more PM-like than Martin, who should have been wearing a navy blue dress when he met Clinton today.

Posted by: Iron Lady at December 9, 2005 6:55 PM

Tried to post a comment on CBC site about Martin and gun control but as usual the infamous "Technical difficulties" . Does that happen a lot on their site? I try not to go there that often but when I do, they always seem to have their problems. I caught the ctvbc news at six last night and laughed my guts out seeing Hedy and Dosanghe, caught like deer in the headlights, being roasted by that reporter, what a pair of incompetent fools! That reporter almost gives me hope, but I'll make a bet that he'll probably loose his job

Posted by: greg at December 9, 2005 7:51 PM

Wild idea here folks, but instead of disarming me why don't we change the laws to "actually" punish criminals who use hand guns?? Wow...did I just say punish? As in consequences for doing something wrong?? How dare I say that when we are still controlled by the liberal government and liberal voters?!?!

Bad Ron, bad.

Posted by: ron in manitoba at December 9, 2005 7:56 PM

Martin announced yesterday, that the penaty for a gun crime, would be doubled from one to two years, automatic, no questions asked. Wowww, let me get my calculator out. Let me see..two years is 24 months, out after doing one third for good behavoiur...Hmmmm..3 divded into 24= 8 months. Oh hand gun will hardly have cooled off by then.

Thanks Paul..your my buddy

Posted by: Bullet at December 9, 2005 8:46 PM

Candace: for gun numbers in general, start with this:

Posted by: debristrail at December 9, 2005 9:45 PM

Candace: the 2.3 million is an estimate, because the registry lost most registrations once or twice and nobody can say exactly how many were registered, re-registered, or only registered once and then lost for good. My personal handgun data was lost twice. The most official number of handguns is estimated at well over 1 million, but this is likely a gross underestimate, just like the registry underestimated the number of guns. The registry claims that it has 90% compliance (I'm laughing at the thought), and that only 7 mill guns in all have been registered, yet this completely doesn't jive with import figures over the past 40 years: The handgun numbers, likewise, are a crap shoot, with the government pretending it knows how many there are. They've lost the data, and not everyone registered the second time; and thousands of guys who think they are registered, likely aren't. Import and registration numbers are way off as well; so a hell of a lot of guns are just "out there" in the hands of guys who think all is well.

see for stats.

Keep in mind that "restricted" and "prohibited" are handgun catagories for the most part. Prohibited is misleading, because a lot of us have "prohibited" legal guns in our safes. {For example, a short barrel makes a 38 special "prohibited", while a longer barrel makes it "restricted". The handgun can be the exact same type, with just different barrel length.}

Posted by: debristrail at December 9, 2005 10:12 PM

Wow, I had no idea we had that many guns (legal ones, I mean) in Canada. That's a hell of a lot of target shooting LOL! Interesting - thanks for the info.

Posted by: Candace at December 9, 2005 10:36 PM

Refresh my memory: which major Canadian political party had an ad in the last election that featured a gun firing at the camera? And did that party introduce any legislation between the last election and this one that would have toughened up laws, tightened up sentencing guidelines, or provided for greater punishment for violent criminal behaviour in any way?

Posted by: Ed Minchau at December 9, 2005 11:40 PM

I wrote this comment for my blog, but it applies here just as well:
Paul Martin has proved he has no love for the West. If there's a single issue that Alberta and Saskatchewan agree 100% on, its that the gun registry has been the biggest Liberal government farce in a decade. To think that banning handguns will affect violent crime numbers in any significant way, is bordering on delusional. Criminals should be tossed in jail for the crime they commit, not which weapon they use to commit it with. If they hold someone up with a bread stick and steal $200, put them in jail for 10 years; if it's a hand gun, 10 years. Criminals do not use legal guns as it is. Use the blasted registry to show they stole the gun or didn't register it, and take it away from the criminals, not the average citizen!

Posted by: saskboy at December 10, 2005 1:04 AM

Candace, back in 1976, when the Turdeau LIEberals were first seriously thinking about universal registration as a way of "stopping gun crime" (hehe), they put together a committee that hummed and hawed about the problem, and the best they could come to was a wide range of possibilities; at an absolute minimum, they knew that there were at LEAST 6 million guns in Canada, and that the theoretical upper limit on that number was somewhere around 21 million guns. They eventually settled on a "most likely true" number of somewhere around 14 million guns in Canada, so the LIEberals shelved the idea until that basshole Rock had his flash of genius, and (desperate to sell it), they dredged up this old "only 6 million guns in Canada" BS again. When you add on 30 years of importation (at an annual average of 1/4 million guns per year), there could be anywhere between 13.5 million (only in the LIEberals' wet dreams :-) ) and 28.5 million guns in Canada, with a "most likely true" number of somewhere around 20 million. Oh yeah, that registration scheme is coming along really well...

Posted by: SDC at December 10, 2005 7:14 PM

This just proves what we mean when we say IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS and just look MIAMI is now safer then LONDON

Posted by: BIRDZILLA at December 11, 2005 2:42 PM