T Nation

Canada to Ban Handguns


Is this just a little election ploy by the liberal government? How will this affect the election?


Canadian Government to Ban Handguns:

Facing elections in late January, due to a no-confidence vote in Parliament that resulted from a corruption scandal, Canada's ruling Liberal party will announce a handgun ban on Thursday ( http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=28eeda45-a3d3-4892-be0e-cfbb397c5af8&k= ). All legally-owned handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s.

On September 22, 1998, Anne McLellan (the Liberal Minister of Justice) said "we're not interested in confiscating their guns, as long as they are legitimate gun owners, as long as they store them appropriately, transport them appropriately and so on ..."

That same day, in a debate in Canada's Parliament, Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough East) stated ( http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/123_1998-09-22/HAN ),

[i]Turning now to the motion, the first issue is the confiscation of private property. If the mover thought about that for more than five seconds, he would realize that a proper registration system gives security of ownership and enhances value. Far from confiscating, it does the exact opposite and legitimizes the owning of firearms. Certainly property registration does wonders for land titles and land values as it does for motor vehicles and other forms of property. Why would it not be true with firearms? [/i]

On August 26, 2004, Canada's Commissioner of Firearms spoke at the annual meeting of the Canadian Professional Police Association ( http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/media/speeches/cppa_aug.26_2004_e.asp ). He declared: "For years, firearm owners have expressed fears regarding the confiscation of firearms. This is a concern I heard loud and clear when we held consultations with firearms organizations last fall. But, in fact, those fears have not materialized."

In a 1976, interview in the New Yorker, the late Nelson Shields, who was then the head of the group which is now known as the Brady Campaign, explained registration's purpose:

The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition ? except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors ? totally illegal.

(Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.)


From the same story...
"Basically, all handguns in Canada are illegal now," said Comartin. "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."

He said the announcement sounds like "a political ploy during an election to garner some headlines and make it look like you're actually doing something when, in fact, what you're proposing is pretty meaningless."

Given the number of stolen guns used in crime, Comartin said there had been some discussion earlier this year at the all-party Commons justice committee about tightening regulations governing safe storage and use of handguns. But that is something that falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Comartin said the one thing the federal government could do would be to stop the flow of illegal firearms into Canada from the United States.
It's probably something fairly meaningless but meant to stabilize support in larger cities.


I hate to dig up this dormant thread, but I suppose it isn't THAT old :slight_smile:

Anyhoo, the reason I oppose gun "control" (other than that it violates a constitutional right) is because every "common sense" step proves to be insufficient. This-a-here article handily proves me correct on the issue, I think. As you powder-and-projectile-ophiles may know, Britian has even more draconian gun laws than Canada, if memory serves.

Now they want to ban knives (the type you cut steak with). Soon the only unregulated table utensil will be the spoon. Plastic 'Sporks', colloquially referred to as "Assault Spoons" by those who seek increased legislative control, will require special permits issued ONLY upon a demonstration of need deemed satisfactory by the Ministry of Sharp Edges and Dangerous Pointy Things.

God, please keep this crap over there and the hell away from my country. Pleeeeease?

Now, enjoy!



What a bunch of idiots.


How come nobody can get the meat of the article without twisting the hell out of it.

This group, whoever they are, want to ban the sharp point on the end of a knife, because it serves no real purpose and causes severe injury or death in cases of domestic violence.

The sad part is that people are going to believe the twisted story and think half the world has gone insane. Wait, half the world is insane. Never mind.


vroom, I know I could count on you to come in and set it all straight for us. Please note the touch of humor with which I wrote the post. Also, is it really any less ridiculous that "some group" wants to ban "only" the pointy part of a knife? Come on! These "groups" all too often find a way to get control of things. I GUARANTEE you they have the ear of someone in government. Canada's and Britian's gun laws didn't just all of a sudden appear in their current state.

You know, those heavy weights in those gyms could fall and hurt someone, and in a domestic incident a dumbbell could really put a dent in someone's face! Same logic...


I don't know fonebone. Maybe if you look at the real issue instead of the caricature of it, it is harder to discard.

I mean, personally, what the hell do I care if the tip of my kitchen knife is pointy or dull? Oh no, it's a slippery slope... soon I'll be forced to eat with my hands... omg.

I really don't know, but how many people do die in domestic disputes involving knives. Hell, if it is primarily men being killed by women during incidents of drunken abuse, perhaps the knife tips should be kept sharp.

Would such a change impact my rights, or anything I can forseeably want to do with my kitchen knives? Is it something I need or want? Would it save lives? Would it impact victims of certain crimes?

I honestly don't give a shit what is done with the tips of knives, either in the UK or over here. Turning it into a caricatures denies the subject anything approaching an honest discussion.

If, and like I said, I have no freaking idea, but if this change in knife shape would save 100's of women and children from death during domestic abuse, then maybe I'd allow them to take the point off my knife... after all, I'm not using it.

I've already allowed them to force me to wear seatbelts. This would have much less impact on my life than that would.


Ha, I actually think it's a good idea; not in Canada though, but in the U.S. What is it something like 2-3000 people are killed with guns in the U.S each year? Next to 20 or so in Canada?

So no Canada shouldn't ban them.


vroom, I do follow yourt line of reasoning. However, my workload dictates that I not comment on it right now. Maybe this afternoon...

The sad thing is that, since there is no clearly articulated constitutional right, at least in the US, to use a stabbing motion versus a slicing motion on your pot roast, there may in fact be no legal argument against this effort :slightly_smiling:

(Please, indulge me a LITTLE ridicule here...)

BB, you started the thread; what do you think?


So buy a knife with a rounded tip.
No need for the government to ban pointy kitchen knives although nothing wrong with promoting a safer alternative.

The right to self defense should exist. I am glad you see that.

Seatbelts are a different animal for many reasons. I am pro-seatbelt use on public roads.


We can ban all of the obviuous and popular weapons tomorrow, but guess what, if you want to kill somebody you'll figure soemthing out. I'm sitting at a desk right now and can see no less than a dozen items that I could kill someone with. Am I going to have to stop sharpening my pencils next?

What we need to address, as a society, is WHY people want to kill one another. Banning weapons has ZERO impact on that.


Zap, AJ,

I'm neither for or against it at this point... I haven't seen enough information to decide.

Anyhow, on a different but related topic, let me tell you a little story.

Once, many years ago, I lived in a college dorm. I had posters on my door. Every weekend drunken idiots would tear them down. There was no rhyme or reason to it, they weren't offensive or anything, they certainly weren't political or disagreeable. Upon discussion, with my friends the next day, my friends or strangers that pulled them down had no real reason for doing it... but they were drunk.

So, being the sneaky devil that I was, I moved the posters low enough that you'd have to bend over to get a grip and yank them off my door.

Low and behold, no more poster vandalism. This was a strange outcome and gave me some insight into the behavior of people, in general.

People don't always plan things. People don't always have reasons for doing things. Sometimes, when their inhibitions are lowered, they will just do something. The easier it is to do something when they are in this state, the more likely it is that they will.

Simply by making it a tiny bit inconvenient to grab my poster, these drunken sots couldn't be bothered to do so anymore. This is a subtle and powerful strategy that can be applied in very many ways.

Anyhow, the point of the story is that during cases of domestic abuse tempers are flaring. People aren't purposely in a situation where they want to kill somebody, but they grab for something their mind perceives as a weapon.

If the implement they grab was simply a little less deadly, they might cause less harm with it. They may suddenly realize their attack is way out of proportion BEFORE mortally wounding their victim.

The point of the original discussion item was not to stop people from committing planned crimes or to remove all possible weapons from people. It was to blunt the damage caused during spur of the moment violece within the home.

Now, of course the seat belt issue is a different animal. However, the point I was raising is that I do allow the government to impact my life -- even for only purely monetary reasons. In this instance, if benefit to society (particularly women and children) was proven, I might decide to allow the government to impact my life in this way.

Again, I've seen no real numbers or other factors that would convince me that this is the case, but it is the height that I am raising the bar before being willing to consider it seriously.

What is your level? Or, do you honestly feel it represents some slippery slope attempt to confiscate all kitchenware and have us drinking every meal from soft plastic cups?