City
Mayor Calls for a Handgun Free Canada
What would you do to save a life? Would you donate a kidney? Volunteer for a bone marrow transplant? Sign an online petition?
Mayor David Miller has gone online to get your support for his Community Safety Plan, including a petition asking the federal government "to take immediate action to ban handguns in Canada."
In a video posted on YouTube yesterday, Miller recalls consoling families and friends of victims of handgun violence and vows to each and everyone of them that he will do everything in his power to put a stop to it.
A January CBC report states that 122 Torontonians lost their lives to gun violence between 2005 and 2007, up 42% from the previous 3-year period.
The pro-gun side of the argument has always suggested that only outlaws will have handguns if handguns are outlawed, but the Coaltion for Gun Control is quick to point out that every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun. Sometimes stolen, sold illegally, or smuggled in from the US, there are also an alarming number of deaths caused by legal firearms users.
To quote Mayor Miller, "every single country in the world that has strict gun laws has lower rates of homicide by gun, lower rates of suicide, has lower rates of accidental death and has lower rates of domestic violence using handguns."
It's doubtful whether the Mayor's plea will go over well on Parliament Hill. Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to be do everything he can not to make waves with stateside, and America is not likely to realize any time soon that the Second Amendment is causing their founding fathers to roll in their graves, but this city has seen more than it's fair share of innocent bystanders and troubled youth lose their lives in recent years, so I personally hope that the Mayor's call to action is heard nationwide and responded to enthusiastically.
If signing the petition can save the next Jane Creba, Todd Baylis, Kempton Howard, Pauline Mattis, Hu Chang Mao or John O'Keefe it would have to be the most rewarding one minute diversion of your day.
Discussion
32 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
We need to fix the problem at the source. It's time to crack down on gangs and the violence that surrounds them. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Question: if at risk youth turn to gangs because they feel marginalized by society, wouldn't a police crackdown just make matters worse?
Do gangs and thugs and criminals care if handguns are banned?
Why are we wasting time on buraucratic bullshit and PR when we shut take these scumbags off the street.
David Miller is a liberal left wing loser that doesnt get anything done except yammering on about "diversity" and "vibrant culture" and "world class city shit"...Who really cares when the streets are filthy, homeless people are sleeping on the street and school pools are being closed.
Maybe if you didnt shut down school pools kids would be tempted to play with handguns.
I take it you mean "wouldn't"... and that's true.... all of this is a waste of effort and scarce resources. Canadian gun laws are already tough verging on oppressive, and they still don't work. It's like banning crowbars to prevent break-ins.
AMEN, sister!
Note to Mayor Douchebag: Drugs are illegal and banned, but they're still easily found at the Comfort Zone!
Instead of banning guns let's introduce mandatory bail and sentencing laws:
-NO bail eligibility for anyone arrested using a gun or caught in possession of a gun while committing a crime
-mandatory minimum sentence (10 years?) when convicted of using a firearm while committing a crime, even if not even a single shot is fired.
Sure, it may not deter criminals from committing a crime but at least they won't be streets committing more crimes while free on bail!
Some of the stories report his desire is that handguns be completely banned except for police (and private armed guards transporting cash to banks ... and 4,800 border guards with fancy new Berettas ... and people up north in "remote areas" [look it up] ... so the list of exemptions will go on, doubtless).
Other stories state he simply wants "collectors" to no longer have the right to own handguns (while never identifying target shooters as being "collectors").
Which one is it? Precisely which handgun-free Canada does Miller have in mind for us?
Handguns are such a pain to legally acquire, store, transport etc. that they're practically banned already in the sense that you a) can't carry one and b) can't use it almost anywhere. You also can't own a handgun in Canada unless it's freakin' huge (because of barrel length limits), so put any images of tiny pocket guns out of your mind, as they are pretty comprehensively banned outright.
Frankly, the total losing-of-shit going on in the UK press over "knife crime" suggests to me that their 1997 handgun ban didn't end up placating people all that much, and that there is at least some segment of society that really enjoys just banning things.
The problem with taking things away from law abiding citizens is that the criminals still have them. For some reason I doubt that if such a ban came into force the criminals would be lining up to turn over their guns. Call me crazy, but I just don't see it happening. So in the end what would be accomplished? A politician tries to look good by making it seem like he cares, yet doing nothing to address the real problem.
When the number of people drinking and driving went some years ago, did Miller beg for a ban on cars, alcohol, or drinking establishments? No. Stiffer penalties were introduced, more R.I.D.E spot checks, and advertising advising the public to call 911 from cell phones if they see a drunk driver on the road went into effect. So why the sudden change in logic when it comes to gun violence? The answer is simple. Money.
Why isn't Miller pleading for stiffer prison sentences, or a new squad that would just target illegal firearms, or to build more jails to keep criminals in jail longer. Yup, it's money folks. Mr. Miller figures (wrongly) that by only calling for a ban on handguns, he will look like a hero by simply throwing up a video on the Internet and setting up an online petition. You can't get any cheaper then that considering he even used youtube to host the video for free! Ask Miller why he doesn't look at the other alternatives including the ones listed above and he will either sidestep the issue, or complain that the city is flat broke. Yes, so broke that city managers saw above-inflation pay increases for 2007, and a week ago I read a story in the Toronto Sun about a TTC ticket taker who made over $100,000 last year. Times are tough indeed.
There's a community in Toronto that seems to be inadequate to live without handguns. They're on the news, print and television unfortunately everyday. They hurt those that abide by the law from their own community, giving them a bad reputation.
Miller should be pushing for stiffer jail time, with no parole instead. We should all band together and make this a safer city, province and country.
My guess;
Carrying a weapon, 30 years
Loaded weapon, 40 years
Firing a loaded weapon, 50 years
Why not?
Maybe Mayor Miller could have a petition for that next week?
Norm wrote: "It's like banning crowbars to prevent break-ins." Jerrold answered: "... except crowbars have actual utility, whereas handguns are meant for killing." Killing is also sometimes necessary; that's why we give guns to cops. And sometimes when killing is necessary -- no cop is around to do it for you.
The issue is not simple. Only those people - who believe it requires a straight-forward, short-term, and heavy-hand - are simple.
The people that are so desperate or emotionally-damaged that they feel they need a gun are lost causes. Current sentencing and trial systems, though not great, do get those who happen to get caught - and the resources that police have available are improving. No matter how much money we throw at post-problem cases - we won't catch them all.
The key is to provide the facilities that prevent individuals at a young age from becoming desperate or damaged enough that they feel they have no other option than a gun - and that means massive investment in infrastructure (social services, community facilities, local counseling, etc.), raised taxes, volunteers, de-segregation of 'supported housing', and other plans to 'intervene' in those families, school settings, and social circumstances that create 'at-risk' youth. We need to aspire to a more northern Europe type of system. In TO we are so tightly squeezed together - communities and neighborhoods mean so much to each other's well-being that we can't hope to be happy by hiding in our houses and just hoping the problem will go away. Give more and get a more 'livable' city in return. If you feel that you cannot afford to support the necessary tax hikes, an urban setting is probably not ideal for you.
If this passes you Canucks had better start killing your "Liberals" before you become like Britain.
If that piece of garbage was my mayor on the day the law passed I would begin hunting him.
Take note that on his video page this piece of garbage forbids posting comments. The "Liberal" scum don't care what you think. It's their way or you die.
Of course, everyone will have to carry their firearms wherever they go, just to make sure they aren't caught with their guard down. Let's face it, every one's going to have a gun on them, so constant vigilance will be a necessity.
Maybe we can give guns to kids at their high school graduation. That way, more kids will see it through to the end. Our society will be more learned, better armed, and there'll be no contraband handguns.
Maybe we could drain all the school pools and turn them into firing ranges. I mean, if we're going to be giving guns to kids, we better make sure they know what to do with them.
Thanks to everyone who spent five minutes to write long rambling knee-jerk reactions about how the petition will never work when you could've just signed it in a fraction of the time. You've renewed my lack of faith in humanity.
Sure, it's a band aid solution and the problem is huge and complex, but at least it's a start. At least Miller's trying.
If you write a pleasant letter to the Mayor's office stating your support for this effort, you are sent one in return. This letter, however, does not simply state that Miller seeks a ban on handguns.
The return letter actually says "semi-automatic weapons" (a term that perhaps sounds intimidating at first brush, but actually describes a incredibly wide spectrum of legitimate hunting rifles and shotguns, for example, otherwise known as the typical type of firearm found in the country as a whole).
This is a TREMENDOUS departure from what Miller is stating in the papers. The ramifications are vastly more far-reaching which is likely precisely why nobody from the Mayor's office seems to be making this statement in public (I think even they know the true scale of the implications of doing so).
Once again, it is very obvious that Miller needs to make his position crystal clear. He is launching a "hearts and minds" campaign without being clear on his goals or his methods, and I can't see how that sits well with anyone on any side of this discussion.
Semi-autos do their fair share of damage, too. Marc Lépine was the registered owner of the semi-auto rifle he used at the École Polytechnique massacre.
But it's interesting that he seems to be sending a mixed message. Maybe it's worth a little follow up.
Dear [name removed],
Thank you for your email letter sharing your perspectives and input.
We need zero tolerance and people who not only use guns but possess guns should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law ...
... The Mayor is of the opinion that this ban on private handguns and semi-automatic weapons would lead to fewer guns on the streets of Toronto ...
Best,
Joanne Miller
It's good to see something positive come out of that senseless tragedy.
So, hypothetically, if someone were to try something similar today, how many rounds would they be restricted to before having to change the magazine? Far fast does a magazine change take on average?
Speaking of modest, here's an alternate proposal: make that five round rule apply to all (legal) handguns (it is currently limited to ten, there). Practically any legitimate, professional range will only permit the use of five at a time anyway, so this should not be a huge problem for anyone.
[Clearly though we again encounter the whole rub of "what if so-and-so just gets illegal magazines from the U.S.?"; and/or "so thugs are really going to throw away their illegal mags?" issues that creates some ... nuance.]
I think it bears mentioning, for example, that pistol target events are still part of the Commonwealth Games and Olympics , clearly events with only sporting (and no Rambo) intent. This is how many (licenced, responsible) people see this issue.
I freely admit that this stuff is a powerfully touchy subject in our fair country, both emotionally and legally, to the point where it's hard to even discuss.
That sounds a bit schizophrenic to me. What good is a right to use force to protect life and limb if other laws effectively prevent you from doing so? And what kind of government would try to prevent you from using force to protect life and limb? It sounds to me that your government's benevolent reputation is undeserved.
Anyway, the whole point of my comments is that this is a bit of a distraction; self-defense isn't a valid reason for any normal citizen to apply for a licence in the first place, and the only place you can even legally LOAD a handgun, much less even think about firing it, is at a formally approved and sanctioned target/training range. It's literally a crime to even load one outside that environment; people sometimes underestimate how strict our laws already are.
Applications for a real leader are now being accepted. We need a positive change to get this city back to one of the best in the world
everything bad about guns is already illegal. that said
We live in a free and democratic society. Sec 7 of our Charter guarantees our right to defend ourselves. Handguns protect life. that's why your beloved mayor has an armed escort. Funny he thinks his life is of more value than yours.
I have also read on various and sundry blogs and boards that
"WE DON"T NEED" handguns to protect ourselves,,by that same reasoning then, we don't need smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, or seat belts since we don't plan on having a fire or car accident..but they are comforting to have just in case.
But the people I worry most about are the ones who say "handguns are only for killing,I don't want people to have them because they might shoot me." in psychology they call that projection. what they really mean is they fear their own anger and they might shoot someone. Take ownership of your emotions and by all means never own a gun you might be the next spree shooter.
to the Hunters who have no problem with banning handguns. after all you don't hunt with one. consider that minutes after they ban handguns it will be pointed out that your rifle and shotgun are 30 times more powerful than any handgun therefor more dangerous ,,thats right they won't take your deer rifle but they will seize your "HIGH POWERED SNIPER RIFLE"
there are 7 million firearms owners controlling 21 million firearms. using the logic of ban advocates we should be living in something resembling down town Khandihar with roving bands of vigilantes doling out frontier justice and ours streets should be running red with blood. Funny I haven't seen it yet...I live in a semi rural town plenty of guns here ,,I can leave my door unlocked and the local business's idea of security is a rope across the drive.
"if it saves one life" c'mon folks think about that one, if that is your defining argument. then lets start with doctors
they will accidentally kill more people this year than guns
you all need to get a grip. you have watched toooo many movies and tooo much TV.
I do not think that putting a ban on any guns is the answer. There has been a rise in gun violence since tougher regulations came into act. The tougher the law the greater the violence acts. These guns are coming in, in the truck loads. Come to Canada no-one has a gun to protect themselves. There are millions of rich people there that their riches are there for the taking and no-one will do anything. Who cares about the rise in insurance costs. It doesn’t bother them. They sell the stuff and get rich then go on to the next. The violence is drug related. If the drugs were easier to get, and with government regulation, cheaper to purchase, bought in Government shops, then that problem would go down in occurrences. Sell this like the LCBO, and then there would be no drug wars. You can get it and cheaper. Then also there would be more control how much drugs to use. There would also be less arsenic, rat poison, too high a purity…, in the drugs to KILL anyone. Gun Violence is rising because criminals know that there are less and less people who have guns. The fines are not severe enough for offenders and children are freer to get off. There should be a lock them up and throw away the key policy for anyone found using a gun in a criminal act. Lawyers who look for stupid loopholes protecting the blantant criminal should also go to JAIL for putting the criminal back out on the street. People have heard that in the US the gun violence is bad. I came back from the States and find it is more violent here, in Toronto, with more shootings and killings, I feel unsafe here in Canada. This is due to the fact there are strict gun controls here. Maybe what should be done is adopt the system from overseas, cut the hand off that committed the crime. Crime would then go down.
My opinion is Agent Orange the poppy fields in Afghanistan and Central America. Force the people to get more meaningful jobs, (the US refuses to spray them as this is what gives the people their livelihood, killing innocent North Americans growing and selling the drugs here)
Our politicians are working at it the wrong way. Who are they protecting anyway? It sure isn’t the innocent public.
I am not happy
I remain for now
MartyMart