December 08, 2005

What Martin's Hand-Gun Ban Really Means...

Martin has announced that, if re-elected, he would ban hand-guns. The top question that seems to be floating around now is, 'what does that mean for Canada?'. Well, I have the answer: If Canada were to ban hand-guns, Canadians could no longer purchase hand-guns legally. That's it. This wouldn't prevent illegal purchases. It would probably prevent some gun related crime - very little - but not crime in general. This is where the problem lies if Martin wants to use crime prevention as justification to ban hand-guns. It's not concrete enough. The announcement is really along the lines of Harper's GST plan, political fluff. However, I do support the idea of banning hand-guns. Not because I think it will do anything for crime rates or anything like that. I just don't see the purpose of them being available to the general public. Beyond law enforcement and even competition use, there is no need for these guns. It's the same idea of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. What purpose do they serve in the general population? Basically, none. Get rid of the guns because of their lack of purpose. Boost law enforcement funding and tackle social poverty to deal with crime.


Anonymous said...

I really hope Martin isn't as stupid as this proposed ban makes him look. It will solve nothing and may even make illegal gun sales stronger as was the case when Britain banned hand guns years ago. I really thought that the gun registry the Liberals implemented a few years ago was a waste of tax dollars but this is even worse. A ban on handguns will be effective in taking weapons out of the hands of responsible owners and that is all. Just because you see no point to gun ownership, that does not mean that all Canadians feel that way...and don't get me wrong, I don't own a gun. This ban will do nothing but wast more tax dollars.

Kyle said...

I'm not opposed to all gun ownership. My family owns a gun. However, that gun is left over from a time when it had a purpose; hunting. It is also not an (semi)automatic weapon or hand gun, the two types of guns that I don't believe have a purpose in the hands of the general public. What would be a justification beyond law enforcement and valid competition for owning either of these weapons?

Quotes from people smarter than me...

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich" ~ JFK

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " ~ Benjamin Franklin

"First it is necessary to stand on your own two feet. But the minute a man finds himself in that position, the next thing he should do is reach out his arms. " ~ Kristin Hunter

"When you're a mayor and you have a problem you blame the provincial government. If you are provincial government and you have a problem you blame the federal government. We don't blame the Queen any more, so once in a while we might blame the Americans." ~ Jean Chretien

"Which is ideology? Which not? You shall know them by their assertion of truth, their contempt for considered reflection, and their fear of debate." ~ John Ralston Saul

"It is undoubtedly easier to believe in absolutes, follow blindly, mouth received wisdom. But that is self-betrayal." ~ John Ralston Saul

"Everybody dies, Tracey. Someone's carrying a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is to die of old age before it finds you." ~ Cpt. Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly, Episode 12)