OT Canadian Gun Control

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//

By CLAYTON RUBY
Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - Page A15

Canada's gun-control law, which requires that all gun owners be
licensed and all firearms registered, still remains a subject of
debate. A combination of ideology, gun-lobby opposition and controversy
over the costs of implementation has kept the issue in the news, even
though the law passed almost nine years ago.

During the recent election campaign, however, the Conservative Party
said it would repeal the requirement to register rifles and shotguns,
despite the fact that these guns account for half the firearms
recovered in crime, even in Toronto. These are also the guns most often
used to kill in domestic violence, suicides and accidents.

But that was not nearly as alarming as the party's pledge to "respect
the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms." Such
language may resonate in the United States, but it runs contrary to
Canadian law, jurisprudence and culture. Canada's law is very much in
keeping with international standards; it is the United States that is
out of step.

Have mistakes been made? Certainly. Was too much money spent? God, yes.

But despite the "billion-dollar registry," most of the money spent to
date has been on screening firearms owners, not on registering guns.

If the Liberal government, as promised, caps the registration portion
at $25-million a year (including the registration of handguns and
assault weapons), it is difficult to see where significant savings
would be gained by eliminating the registration of rifles and shotguns.

And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It is
perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law, but
death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger gun
control. In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
with 1,367 in 1989. Today, 90 per cent of gun owners are licensed, 85
per cent of guns are registered and the system is regularly used to
prevent and investigate crime: 900 affidavits based on registry
information that supported criminal prosecutions were filed in Canada
last year. Scrapping the law makes little sense at this point.

Firearms controls have become a matter of international concern. The
same networks used to divert legal guns to illegal markets in one
country are also used to supply the international illicit trade.
Consequently, while strong domestic controls on firearms have a
significant impact, the absence of controls in one jurisdiction creates
huge problems in others.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States. Suggestions
that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work are
ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than 10,800
in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are effective.
But the recognition that guns know no borders has motivated many
countries to press for international standards to regulate firearms.

While there has been progress made at the United Nations in
establishing standards for marking and tracing and for import and
export of guns, the United States has steadfastly blocked efforts to
create international guidelines for regulation of civilian firearms.

Despite that, concerns about the flow of guns from unregulated to
regulated areas are increasing the pressure to take action. In 1997,
the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission passed a
resolution sponsored by 33 countries that explicitly linked access to
firearms to death and injury. It stressed the importance of domestic
legislation to control the flow of guns from less regulated to more
regulated areas. It maintained that countries that had not already done
so should implement safe-storage requirements, license firearm owners,
register firearms and have appropriate penalties for illegal
possession. (Despite gun-lobby rhetoric, illegal possession in Canada
is a Criminal Code offence as well as a lesser offence under the
Firearms Act, punishable by summary conviction.) U.S. intransigence
remains the No. 1 problem: The Small Arms Survey (a project of the
Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva) estimates that
almost a third of all guns in the world are in the United States. A
disturbing reminder of the power of the U.S. gun lobby was reflected in
post-9/11 absurdity, when the United States imprisoned thousands
without charge but refused to allow their gun records to be checked for
gun ownership because, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
maintained, "that would be a violation of their rights."

The current administration has pledged to allow the civilian ban even
on military assault weapons to expire in October, posing a real danger
to Canadians.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a case dealing with legislative
controls on automatic weapons, has said that Canadians "do not have a
constitutional right to bear arms" (R. v. Hasselwander, 1993). In the
majority judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the firearms
reference case, Madam Justice Catherine Fraser recognized that
"increased firearms controls are also consistent with the philosophy
underlying the UN's Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against
Women . . . Parliament's efforts with Bill C-68 [the gun-registry
legislation] were motivated, in part, by the desire to reduce the
incidence of firearms-related domestic violence. This being so, one
should not ignore the international human-rights context."

Strong gun control remains one of the core values that separate us from
the United States. Despite the ludicrous claims that more guns result
in less crime, most Canadians know that strong laws have set us on a
safer path, very different from the one our neighbours to the south are
walking.

Clayton Ruby is a Toronto lawyer.

<cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
>

Even though it's off topic it's a great article. I suspect there is a silent majority
even in the US that is tired of all the guns and gun violence here.

Adam

"Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TBvNc.253$9Y6.63@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net...
>
> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> >
>
> Even though it's off topic it's a great article. I suspect there is a
silent majority
> even in the US that is tired of all the guns and gun violence here.

Actually people in the silent majority here in the U.S. fantasize about how
long the LA riots would have lasted had Reginald Denny rolled out of his
truck with an AR-15 and started whacking shitbags.....after running over a
few of them of course.

On 27 Jul 2004 08:33:40 -0700, cam.barr@beer.com wrote:

>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
>
>By CLAYTON RUBY
>Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - Page A15


>
>Clayton Ruby is a Toronto lawyer.

That says it all. Toronto and lawyer, all rolled into one.

I wonder how this reads in Alberta.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

"Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TBvNc.253$9Y6.63@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net...
>
> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> >
>
> Even though it's off topic it's a great article. I suspect there is a
silent majority
> even in the US that is tired of all the guns and gun violence here.

I imagine your partially right. There are almost definitely a majority of
people who are tired of the gun violence here. Statistics also show that
they'd like to have stricter control of guns, but that they'd (as a whole)
rather have easy access than any of the particular options for stricter
control that have been suggested.

>
> Adam
>
>

Dillon Pyron wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 2004 08:33:40 -0700, cam.barr@beer.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> >
> >By CLAYTON RUBY
> >Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - Page A15
>
> >
> >Clayton Ruby is a Toronto lawyer.
>
> That says it all. Toronto and lawyer, all rolled into one.

My thoughts exactly.

> I wonder how this reads in Alberta.

It reads like "separation".

Brian
Edmonton, Alberta

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:43:40 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
<chris.guynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:TBvNc.253$9Y6.63@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>
>> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
>news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
>> >
>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
>> >
>>
>> Even though it's off topic it's a great article. I suspect there is a
>silent majority
>> even in the US that is tired of all the guns and gun violence here.
>
>I imagine your partially right. There are almost definitely a majority of
>people who are tired of the gun violence here. Statistics also show that
>they'd like to have stricter control of guns, but that they'd (as a whole)
>rather have easy access than any of the particular options for stricter
>control that have been suggested.
>
Let's compare DC and Austin. In DC, possesion of a handgun or of an
assembled long gun is a felony. In Austin, we have the right to
carry. Which has a higher crime rate? Which has a higher murder
rate?

Yeah, I know, Austin really is a dangerous place. We have so many
tree huggers and lawyers.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

"Dillon Pyron" <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0nbdg09sbji1trg64499jj6c2tk516lps1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:43:40 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
> <chris.guynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:TBvNc.253$9Y6.63@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >>
> >> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> >news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >> >
>
>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...C/20040727/COG
UNS27//
> >> >
> >>
> >> Even though it's off topic it's a great article. I suspect there is a
> >silent majority
> >> even in the US that is tired of all the guns and gun violence here.
> >
> >I imagine your partially right. There are almost definitely a majority
of
> >people who are tired of the gun violence here. Statistics also show that
> >they'd like to have stricter control of guns, but that they'd (as a
whole)
> >rather have easy access than any of the particular options for stricter
> >control that have been suggested.
> >
> Let's compare DC and Austin. In DC, possesion of a handgun or of an
> assembled long gun is a felony. In Austin, we have the right to
> carry. Which has a higher crime rate?

Lemmee guess... ummm... DC?

> Which has a higher murder rate?

I'm gonna have to go with... ummm... DC again...

>
> Yeah, I know, Austin really is a dangerous place. We have so many
> tree huggers and lawyers.

and politicians... don't forget the politicians.

>
> --
> dillon
>
> When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
> and the horse's name was Bob.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:36:03 GMT, Brian Nadwidny <nadwidny@excite.com>
wrote:

>Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2004 08:33:40 -0700, cam.barr@beer.com wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
>> >
>> >By CLAYTON RUBY
>> >Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - Page A15
>>
>> >
>> >Clayton Ruby is a Toronto lawyer.
>>
>> That says it all. Toronto and lawyer, all rolled into one.
>
>My thoughts exactly.
>
>> I wonder how this reads in Alberta.
>
>It reads like "separation".
>
>Brian
>Edmonton, Alberta

I have a friend in BC who insists he washes his mouth out after saying
Ottawa.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote in message news:<jtwNc.21101$6S5.7877@newssvr23.news.prodigy. com>...
> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> <snip>
>
> > And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It is
> > perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law, but
> > death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger gun
> > control.

You must be reading from a gun control source. According to what I
have on Canada, your gun control efforts, particularly the attempt to
register firearms, was a disaster. Perhaps you will find the truth
interesting.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:15:06 GMT, the following was written by a
Canadian at the Fraiser Institute.
The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for
assessing crime
rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal
violence over the past decade - for example, the homicide rate in the
US has fallen 42 percent since 1991.

What makes this particularly interesting is that the manufacture and
importation
of most semi-automatic rifles was banned in the early 90's. Because of
the
ban, people rushed out and bought those that were available. More guns
were
aquired in that one year than the previous 20 years combined. The
radical
liberals were shocked when the homicide rate went down, instead of up
as
they predicted would happen when such a large nummber of weapons were
suddenly in the hands of average ignorant peasants

This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the
world -
in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent
crime
increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the
Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that
qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns
for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in
the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry
concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can
get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country
examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has
been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all
cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that
produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the
situation worse.

Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive
firearms
laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going
from 10 per
million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as
the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35
percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has
increased.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms
legislation in
1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained
basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While
violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in
Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime
in Australia has been on the rise - for example, armed robberies have
jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost
Australian
taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services
bureaucracy,
including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system,
has increased by $200 million since 1997.

"And for what?" asks Mauser. "There has been no visible impact on
violent crime.
It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers'
money for no
>decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have
had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment."

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States
and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent
crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent
crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the
US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce
says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally
claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor
General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the
costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3
billion.
>
>"It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no
matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to
commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather
than hunters and target shooters?" says Mauser.
.......................................

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public
policy
organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT PICTURE OF CANADA, ISN"T IT?

>
> That is probably true. Now the question begs to be asked, what happened to
> the non-gun related violent crime rates?
>
> > In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
> > with 1,367 in 1989.
>
> What about the deaths not involving firearms? How did they change (if at
> all)?
>
> > Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
> > handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States. Suggestions
> > that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work are
> > ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
> > Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than 10,800
> > in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are effective.
>
> That alone isn't proof. The population density of America is approximately
> ten times that of Canada. If you assume a linear relationship between
> population density and murder rate, that would put Canada at an adjusted
> 1,490 murders. You could assume a similar situation for population. It's
> feasible that murder rate is *partially* determinedby both total population
> and population density (the more people you have, the more will be killers
> and the closer people live to each other, the easier it is to get on their
> nerves). If that is the case (again, assuming linear realtionships), that
> would give Canada an adjusted murder rate of 14,900. Granted that's based
> on assumptions, but they seem relatively valid to me.
>
> > But the recognition that guns know no borders has motivated many
> > countries to press for international standards to regulate firearms.
>
> You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
>
> > While there has been progress made at the United Nations in
> > establishing standards for marking and tracing and for import and
> > export of guns, the United States has steadfastly blocked efforts to
> > create international guidelines for regulation of civilian firearms.
>
> If they pass, it will just be one more reason for us to get out.
>
> > Despite that, concerns about the flow of guns from unregulated to
> > regulated areas are increasing the pressure to take action. In 1997,
> > the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission passed a
> > resolution sponsored by 33 countries that explicitly linked access to
> > firearms to death and injury.
>
> Yippee. Good for them. Another perfect example of a waste of my tax
> dollars.
>
> > It stressed the importance of domestic
> > legislation to control the flow of guns from less regulated to more
> > regulated areas. It maintained that countries that had not already done
> > so should implement safe-storage requirements, license firearm owners,
> > register firearms and have appropriate penalties for illegal
> > possession.
>
> Gotta love that one world government. Isn't it great. They get to tell all
> the countries how to act and what to do.
>
> > (Despite gun-lobby rhetoric,
>
> Because of anti-gun lobby rhetoric...
>
> > illegal possession in Canada
> > is a Criminal Code offence
>
> Something that's illegal (illegal possession) is against the law (a Criminal
> Code Offense). Wow, who would have guessed that.
>
> > as well as a lesser offence under the
> > Firearms Act, punishable by summary conviction.) U.S. intransigence
> > remains the No. 1 problem:
>
> Look, we're causing more problems elsewhere. We are such a bad country.
>
> > The Small Arms Survey (a project of the
> > Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva) estimates that
> > almost a third of all guns in the world are in the United States. A
> > disturbing reminder of the power of the U.S. gun lobby was reflected in
> > post-9/11 absurdity, when the United States imprisoned thousands
> > without charge but refused to allow their gun records to be checked for
> > gun ownership because, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
> > maintained, "that would be a violation of their rights."
>
> What would it have mattered? They were already in custody. It isn't like
> they'd all of a sudden be able to get to their guns. If they are/were
> convicted, then their records would have been checked.
>
> >
> > The current administration has pledged to allow the civilian ban even
> > on military assault weapons to expire in October, posing a real danger
> > to Canadians.
>
> Hallalujah.
>
> >
> > The Supreme Court of Canada, in a case dealing with legislative
> > controls on automatic weapons, has said that Canadians "do not have a
> > constitutional right to bear arms" (R. v. Hasselwander, 1993).
>
> Sucks to be you.
>
> > In the majority judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the firearms
> > reference case, Madam Justice Catherine Fraser recognized that
> > "increased firearms controls are also consistent with the philosophy
> > underlying the UN's Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against
> > Women . . . Parliament's efforts with Bill C-68 [the gun-registry
> > legislation] were motivated, in part, by the desire to reduce the
> > incidence of firearms-related domestic violence. This being so, one
> > should not ignore the international human-rights context."
>
> Hey Canadians... heads up, the UN is now running your country.
>
> >
> > Strong gun control remains one of the core values that separate us from
> > the United States. Despite the ludicrous claims that more guns result
> > in less crime,
>
> Which this article failed to disprove in any meaningful fashion.
>
> > most Canadians know that strong laws have set us on a
> > safer path, very different from the one our neighbours to the south are
> > walking.
> >
> > Clayton Ruby is a Toronto lawyer.
>
> I should have known it was written by a lawyer. Why would it not be
> surprising that a lawyer would be writing an article praising strong laws?
>
> >