For any one who is unaware, hand guns are not already banned in Canada, as Harper repeated many times in his campaign. Any Canadian citizen over 18 years old can buy a weapon if they go through the application licensing process (Possession and Acquisition License PAL). It takes as little as 26 days to get a PAL and another 10 days to have a hand gun delivered to your door from any number of internet dealers. 6 weeks and anyone can become armed.

Banning hand guns will not do away with criminal gun use. But it will make a dent in the supply.

[Oops, forgot to log out and sign back in as my other sock puppet. Damn. I'll delete this now so no one can see it.]

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

Largest handgun theft in memory

quote:

---

It isn't difficult to determine where gun collectors live . . .

---

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Absolutely they should be stored with the police department. Because of one collector, 40 handguns are now out there.

---

I agree with you, but I don't blame the collector. It's the thief who is at fault. Nevertheless, collections have become problematic; they're targets. That's why the police should have control of them. At the very least, the level of security has to be increased.

Sometimes,these collectors are targetted because some guns are rare and worth a great deal on the collector black market while the run of the mill guns are worth a great deal to criminals.

- Provinces could "opt out" of the ban. which Alberta and Saskatchewan immediately announced they would do with BC following suit.

- The "ban" would not have covered "legitimate target shooters" - which means that all of those "collectors" who are currently exempt from the existing ban would have to get new documentation proving they were "legtitimate target shooters". Real tough.

Liberals were silly enough during the election. Now that it's over can we please please stop acting as if their "ideas" had any serious merit?

Handguns are a problem. This so-called "ban" is not, and was not ever, a serious solution.

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:
The Liberal handgun "ban" was a joke. Under the Liberal proposal:

- Provinces could "opt out" of the ban.

---

You're absolutely right. We need more private health care and handguns American-style. Socialized medicine and low-low homicide rates and accidental child shootings aren't all they're cracked up to be in those 30 some odd other developed nations excluding the U.S. Bring on death by HMO and American Beretta!. Afterall, what's freedom if our kids can't bring concealed firearms to school ?.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

But the Liberal's handgun ban was a joke.

If Saskatchewan's Premier didn't see a problem of such drastic magnitude, he did not have to act on this. As it is known that the majority of the Canadian "gun lobby is from Alberta and Northern B.C., how the hell would Layton or any leader last 2 seconds "imposing" a ban there? That's a bogus excuse.

Any province that saw the need, the federal “legal framework” would have been on the books, and if rising gun violence became an issue any other province could opt in at any time, and residents could force their provincial government to act if their provincial leadership was not effective enough in dealing with this kind of crime. This would have spread province to province if the residents pushed where the need was identified. But Ontario wanted the ban NOW!

A ban on handguns would make them "illegal to harbour, own, carry", which would mean automatic serious violations. Once handguns were banned, there would be no "I wasn't going to use it" excuse, or "I kept them stored securely, but don't know what happened", and no chance of parole for violating the ban. That is a lie about the "legitimate target shooters" just easily changing their designation at their convenience. They would have had to be proven to be target shooters, and would still have been responsible if the guns got into the wrong hands. Anyone who then stole a "target shooters" gun would have no excuse, if caught would get the book thrown at them, as opposed to now, and they would have had "no excuse" but only severe consequences. Changing from a collector to a “target shooter” designation would not have been the case for several of the “collectors” of stolen guns to date, and would not have been just a loophole. That is completely bogus. Ontario would have enforced this, and they would never have allowed “easy” switch "pretense" arsenals available to be stolen guns into criminal hands. Ontario’s Michael Brayant, solicitor general is adamant about getting this done, and cutting off the flow of guns from this dangerous source into criminal hands, so your assumption is completely ludicrous blather.

Given that in the last 3 years in Ontario, dozens of gun collectors have had their guns stolen all around Toronto and the GTA (many of these guns not yet recovered by police), and some are listed in that article, this is a source of a huge number of the guns used to kill people here, so Ontario wants the ban. Who the hell cares if somewhere else in the country they don't need the ban. Ontario needs and wants the ban in now, and enforced in our cities.

In one case just east of Toronto a couple of years ago "167 guns" of all types were stolen, and the owner was murdered to get them. Gun collections are a nice hobby? NOT, change hobbies, hell they are not worth the death count, the danger, and the cost to apprehend the thieves after the big theft from collectors. Thieves who distribute them to all kinds of criminal element.

We're chasing our butts in circles when we leave ready-made arsenals of guns handy for criminals to do mass distribution to kill our own citizens, while the police chase in circles "at extreme cost" to the public purse trying "almost futily" to track them all down afterwards.

Such blather from those who "denounce" anything because they have an illogical axe to grind or those who just want to criticize for political "punk" reasons. TCD, your argument sucks, just like your "invented" attack on Maude Barlow sucked. You have a very cynical and abusive attitude, and seem to want to attack any social issue that might advance what progressive people believe in. So, I'm not impressed with "anything" you say from here on in.

Funny, Layton backed the ban on handguns, so did McGinty, the Solicitor General, Mayor Miller, and the chief of Police. So you know more than all of those who are dealing with the issue directly? I doubt it. This would have been the best solution, and it would tighten the supply in a critically needed area. So progressive anti-gun is NOT your position, right?

The rest of the handgun policy was comprehensive and would have been very effective. There was to be a $250 million "specially trained new guns and gangs task force" of the RCMP to go anywhere in Canada, starting with Toronto, using special intelligence gathering assets and clean the guns out of criminal hands. But what good would all of this do if they just kept leaving "collector's guns" around to steal? NONE.

This “task force” critical strategy worked extremely well in Quebec to eliminate and target biker gangs, where it was a deadly problem. Was there a need for this in Nunavut, or Halifax, or Lethbridge? NO, the need at “the time” was IN QUEBEC. The cost effective way to deal with this "is where the need is", so your "country-wide" excuse holds no water. It was tremendously "needed" and "wanted" in Ontario, and did not pose the same "national need" at the present time. Why would this have had to be done nationally, when there was no "driving need" elsewhere? The law would be in the criminal code for any province that later needed to deal with this kind of serious gun and death issue.

If other provinces later saw the need, they would opt in, but the Federal law would be there to provide the criminal code basis as the need arose. What the hell does it matter if they did this in places where they don't have the same problem? Why would a province spend money to set up such a program of gun banning and enforcement, tracking, or interdiction, IF THERE WAS NO PROBLEM THERE? As it turns out, not all things "require" national solutions, but the "armchair" quarterbacks can fuel any useless argument, that's their purpose in life. When they dealt with the biker gangs in Quebec, that did "not need a national solution" either.

The rest of the gun plan was to provide huge increase of interdiction, and stopping smuggling at the border. There was big money for poorer neighbourhoods where kids were targeted into gangs, to set up skills programs, job training, youth interventions, and a job placement center to give these youth a real opportunity to be "included in our society". This was the most important plank of this "comprehensive gun ban policy". The city, the Province and the entire community services sector was behind this program entirely. It was exactly what was needed in Ontario cities. THIS WAS ALSO PART OF THE GUN BAN POLICY. But you selectively called this entire policy a joke? Since the NDP agreed with this policy, which party are you advocating for? The gun lobby party?

Yet, for those who trash good policies, who only focus on the ban "being nationwide" as an excuse to crush the idea, none of the rest of the gun plan is EVER mentioned by you. Why is that? Is it because you just want to trash, cause you're not a progressive anyway , and just to slide that slander in, anything goes?

Ontario wants the plan, would have had the tools to enforce it, and if you had a gun after that in Ontario there would be no wiggle room, with best lawyers in town to get your ass out of a sling because “guns would be banned in Ontario’s cities”. Less guns, strict enforcement of the ban in Ontario cities with RCMP task force to clean them out of criminal hands to boot, less deaths, and hell of a lot less "excluded" and unfulfilled young lives thrown in the trash bin as was done by the Mike Harris government. Kids with a real future don't have to turn to violence out of frustration and self-esteem issues. They would be valued, given the opportunity to lead productive lives, aiming to increased self-esteem, and the whole society would be better off.

But that's not good enough for gun enthusiasts and right wingers, is it? Cause you’re sure not progressive. It's better to shoot your mouth off and criticize, that's way, way too easy. It's better to pretend to be concerned while you "pooh-pooh" intelligent solutions, obviously without good intent. Forget it. Your positions eat right at the heart of what can be considered even close to being progressive in this country.

Progressive? The Conservative party will not only reverse the gun registry, which currently will save not ONE DIME, but will not allow POLICE FORCES to know where guns are housed for in domestic disputes, and every door they may attend, but will “reverse their ability to determine the source” of illegal guns from locations inside Canada, and will reverse Police ability to do 5000 background checks a year on serious police investigations. The Conservative policy to reverse the registry will destroy a system nationwide that is already paid for and in place and save NOT ONE RED CENT? This is bull what you are saying. It is not the gun registry that gave out the names of the gun collectors, unless you are saying the police gave out this information to the criminals? Talk about making shit up.

Conservatives will reverse the 1995 law on HANDGUN RESTRICTIONS, thereby making all guns available to anyone and everyone? What are you talking about? This is sick. More deaths, more U.S. style crime, and the hell with your phoney criticisms of the gun registry. Police all over this country demanded it, use it EVERY SINGLE DAY to protect their lives, the lives of citizens, to prevent the flow of legal gun sales for illegal uses, and thefts making every handgun owner accountable for their registered guns.

The pro-gun lobby is not progressive view, and whoever advocates this does not belong on this board. No progressive person advocates for more guns, no restrictions, and unaccountable gun ownership. No progressive person advocates for more guns “unrestricted” to land in the hands of those who would kill innocent people in Canada from collectors or any other source where it is used a supply to kill innocent people. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN TORONTO.

Criminals were going to be the target of this ban, especially with the "RCMP guns and gangs task force", so they would have been seriously targeted. This is not the U.S., and if you are advocating more guns, or no gun registry, or no ban in Ontario, you are not promoting the views of the huge majority of Canadians opposed to violent gun crime statistics like those found in the U.S. Layton favoured the gun ban, so which party are you speaking for if you are so flippantly opposed to it, and especially for Ontario where the ban is absolutely necessary and demanded by all levels of Ontario’s government, and all progressive people on this issue? Which party speaks for you, cause it sure isn’t a progressive stance you’ve taken.

And you are wrong TCD, the gun lobby spoke out vehemently about the handgun ban on CP24, on CFRB, on Newsworld, everywhere they could get this stinking mouths to a microphone. Your position on the "gun ban policies" and the gun registry are not only questionable, your entire reason for being on this board is questionable.

Comments about this issue made a serious mockery of Chuvok’s intent for this thread. Instead you sought to undermine every reason for gun control in this county, even to the exclusion of where the ban was really needed, in Ontario. That is absolutely not progressive view, and your attitudes are very questionable indeed.

- There is currently no legal excuse to carry a handgun. If you're caught carrying one you are in trouble.

- Under the plan that Martin proposed there would have been wiggle room - almost as much as there is now. Collectors would have been banned - "legitimate target shooters" would not have.

- Even assuming, for rhetorical purposes, that such a ban would have any effect if it was imposed just in Ontario and not in the other provinces, it's a five hour drive from Toronto to Montreal. Do we really assume that organized criminals smart enough to orchestrate a heist of this nature are too stupid to organize an out-of-province day trip?

Cracking down on handguns with a real ban has some serious merit. A central armory like the one Miller proposed has some real merit. The Liberal plan was a joke.

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Burns ]

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Burns ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The gun manufacturers of America lobby in that country would be the first private interest group to spend money on campaigns to influence our thoughts in Canada. In general, I don't think those who profit from handgun sales would be particularly agreeable to a ban on their product.

---

As a card carrying member of the gun lobby, may I correct that assumption. The gun manufacturers in the US have steadfastly refused to fund any of the gun rights groups here in Canada. In the words of one of Remington's executives "Canada represents 4% of our market. We really don't care what happens to you."

Chuck you Farley. I am as progressive as the next person, and I resent the hell out of you trying to dictate what is progressive and labelling some of us who ARE progressive as right wing regressives. Yes, the majority of people who support gun owners rights are right wingers. There's a lot of people on the right wing who are also huge defenders of freeedom of speech. That doesn't make freedom of speech a right wing issue. Neither freedom of speech nor gun rights are issues that can be defined by the left/right dichotomy. They are something that can be split into the libertarian/statist dichotomy. Maybe you figure that statism is progressivism. I don't.

Cracking down on handguns with a real ban has some serious merit. A central armory like the one Miller proposed has some real merit. The Liberal plan was a joke.

>>>>>> Pure cynicism, pure partisanship. We have to do better than this. You’re claiming to be on the side of David Miller? Well, Mr. Miller said today “wants the ban, wants the funding for youth, wants the exact same onus put on the gun carrier to prove he deserves bail, instead of forcing the crown to prove otherwise. Mr. Miller wants the exact same policy stated above, so your quoting of what appear to be right wing “excuses” and then ending with support for Miller in some very oddly “limited” fashion is equally questionable, at best.

Guns are NOT banned, despite what the Conservatives claimed during the election. Under the 1995 handgun restriction law, guns are legally registered, and are not explicitly "banned". Conservatives claim they are banned since 1935, a complete lie. Ridiculous, if guns were already banned, there would be no registered guns to anyone but police and armed forces in absolute terms. Handgun restrictions were not put in place until 1995. A ban, and a restriction constitute considerably different things under the law.

Someone carrying a gun right now is NOT "in serious trouble" as you claim. TOTALLY UNTRUE, AS MILLER SAID TODAY, AS HAS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. The onus is on the crown to prove that the person should be denied bail, and if no criminal history, this is hard to obtain for just possession. The law is currently not "tight" enough to make HAVING A GUN a criminal code violation that would result in no bail, or even an “automatic” prison sentence. People with good lawyering have been able to obtain BAIL, and later get off with PROBATION of 6 months. That does NOT constitute serious trouble. Happened right here in Ontario, then the gun toter of a stolen gun was later able to go out and "actually" shoot someone “while out on bail”. So what are you talking about? There is currently discretion in the criminal code for judges to make various determinations on the facts of each case. With no “apprehension” that a crime might be committed, under the current law the defendant is given bail, free to commit murder.

What this ban “series of policies” aimed to do was to “remove discretion” from the entire legal system in this case of holding, carrying, harboring guns. In order to take all discretion out under the law, you have to ban guns. A ban would have made that absolute. Come to Ontario, have a gun, go to prison. Much better than what things are currently. If you were then caught with one stolen firearm, arse in a sling. If you were caught smuggling one gun in, arse in a sling. No more discretion. Right now it’s a revolving door, what good it that? The Chief of Police IS FED UP WITH IT. This ban is plenty better than current restrictions, and THERE WOULD BE less guns available to steal in their own backyards.

It is my understanding that "all changes to firearms law” have to be first put into the criminal code of Canada. Provinces cannot just make this “gun ban” law without federal parliament acting first.

You assume "wiggle room", but you have no basis to make that claim. During the election, the details are not forthcoming to you or anyone else on any party’s policies, but when the legislation is drafted, these "so called" loopholes would have been easily closed. Never are all election policy details disclosed, true for every party on every issue. Who cares? This is another “coloured herring”, just thrown in to discredit the policy. Doesn’t change the viability of a comprehensive “gun ban policy” ONE BIT.

The law could EASILY state that all target shooter firearms be held and guarded at a central point, or that they be kept on site under guard in specifically mandated and controlled circumstances, and that no handguns be allowed to leave the premises. Provisions with discretion could allow provinces to set those parameters, as long as the ban is enforceable, as I understand it. It’s not about it being a Liberal plan, it is about a plan that would ban guns.

Partisanship in this case has no place whatsoever. The GOAL is to obtain the tools necessary to make a ban work, and Ontario wants the ban. Since this was the only party proposing a solution, it is the solution that is being discussed. NDP agreed with it. Conservatives were completely opposed to restrictions AND WOULD REMOVE CURRENT GUN RESTRICTIONS, let alone imposition of bans. Gun enthusiasts and urban cowboys, and partisans aim stupid arguments at this, because their “gun-loving”, or “partisan” sensibilities take precedence over public good.

If you’re seeking perfection, whatever that is, you’re going to do nothing? What the hell good is that? Lives of the innocent come first, and we don’t want Canada coming up with a gun in every house, and U.S. crime stats in our cities, so “gun lovers”, or “political partisans” lose that argument here and now. Except for sport in restricted circumstances, what the hell do people in Canada need guns for? And if this “target shooting” group isn’t tightly restricted enough, and careful as hell, they would know they’re on notice too.

If this is what has to be done to save numerous innocent lives, including little kids and people just walking down a public street, hell with whatever your impudent argument might be. And arguing to “facetiously” find fault with anything that will curb guns is “not an argument” that defeats a policy, It’s just an “anti-ban”, or “anti-party” attitude. So far you’ve produced no argument that cannot be “easily” rectified by the details in the law.

When legislation is considered, there are always, always consultations and serious reflections to make the law effective. This would have been no different. I’m certain the advocates for gun control, and legal experts would have been more than happy to lock this one up as tight as possible. Yours was so far a Bogus argument.

Conservatives want to “remove current restrictions” from the 1995 law. This is nuts, and makes no one safer, it makes guns considerably more available anywhere and everywhere, and definitely more guns in the “wrong hands”. “Wrong hands”, could be your cantankerous next door neighbour, or the mentally unstable guy who doesn’t like his co-workers, or a punk out for revenge, any number of dangerous situations that WE DON’T NEED IN CANADA. This is not about partisan politics, it is about dealing with the problem, reducing the supply, and cracking down on any one who violates this law. Unless you have a better solution, and are even slightly serious about this, then let’s hear it. That’s called working together as a society to make solutions, been done many times, and has worked extraordinarily well when people want to make it work.

When police apprehend someone in a residence with a gun, they can charge them currently, but contrary to what Burns said, “they are not automatically in serious trouble”. THIS IS THE CONSERVATIVE CLAIM, BUT IT IS NOT TRUE, as already explained.

Target shooters were only going to be allowed in specific circumstances, and were going to be restricted as well. And this can be as tightly controlled as needed. Once the law was in effect allowing a province to "enforce any number of restrictions" as they deemed appropriate, the provincial solicitor general would be able to enforce it. They first, as I understand it, needed a ban, and specific enabling legislation to make the laws as the situation warranted. A BAN would be a BAN. Anything less is not good enough.

Clearly, you are arguing here that the ban is useless because proximity to Montreal, that a real ban has serious merit, and Miller’s lock up is a good “ idea”? I’m with Miller, and he wants the ban in Ontario cities, so why the hell are you arguing for and against it? Your statements are completely contradictory, and not illucidating in the slightest.

To say that guns would be then "heisted from Montreal" is possible, but the difference isn't just the heist. Let the RCMP deal with this, I'm sure they can handle it. If this became a serious problem then that would have to be addressed between Ontario and Quebec, and it’s certain that too would lead to action. Quebec would no more want to be the source of this kind of thing than Ontario is. Remember that public healthcare started in one province, and that’s often how things get done in a federation such as Canada. Some provinces may never opt in, but other more progressive ones will. If it were possible, it would be great to have a nationwide ban, but realistically, everyone knows that is not how this federation works. No party could force that into effect. But doing nothing is just defeatist.

Regardless, the minute you crossed into Ontario with a gun, you then would have been in serious "shit", and the police or the RCMP task force would be able to put your arse in a very tight sling. One less loser to worry about. Criminals caught with a gun after that would do mandatory prison time, and no chance of bail. A criminal conviction of this sort would be serious prison time, could get years of probabtion afterward, and police would have clear path to keep an eye on such individuals down the road.

This would have sent a strong message, and from that moment on, anyone even found to harbour a gun would have faced this severe penalty. Right now there are “collections” being stolen in droves, right in our backyard. What would you propose, the status quo? NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Doing nothing, or Conservative crazed solution of “removing current gun restrictions” is absolute worst option.

There would be NO wiggle room at this juncture. Then coupled with the new RCMP “intelligence team”, guns and gangs task force, they would have rounded up the guns because you “aren’t supposed to have one”. ONE less gun in the hands of those who would use them is potentially many lives saved. If the RCMP can take down the Hells angels, they can sure as hell take out the types who’ve been involved in gun crimes in Ontario. Stop looking for ways to just blow this off. That’s all you’re doing.

People who want the ban have a different view, and who knows where you live, and what side of the political spectrum you’re coming from, but I would suspect it’s “anything but a gun ban” that you favour, or it’s just partisanship. MILLER would have been front and center and his input would have been “seriously” welcomed, so that’s no impediment. What is this really about to you? Every part of this was easily adaptable to satisfy all concerns.

Demanding that Harper do something about this is where all of the proponents of the ban stand right now, so this isn’t about Liberals or NDP, it’s about getting something done that stops the needless deaths. That’s it.

Those who want the law tightened are aiming to make “less guns” available. Nothing will ever be perfect, so why bother trying is what you’re saying? Why don’t we just give everyone a gun, and throw up our hands? That would really solve the problem right? Again, if the entire law enforcement community, the chief of Police, the solicitor general, the mayor, the community wants this action taken, how can you claim to know more than they do, and how can you pretend to support Miller’s position? Very odd.

To claim this was a joke is just pure partisanship, and that’s not good enough on this issue. It is not about politics to many, it’s about the lives of Canadians, and if you have nothing but frivolous criticism, and nothing positive to add, it does nothing to advance safer communities.

The entire “gun ban series of policies” taken together would have had a very big impact on what is currently happening in our cities. Doing nothing and just finding reasons to deny any action are not worth the time wasted to script them. Leave the politics aside for once, and give some positive solutions. If you know so much about it, add it to the discussion. That’s a hell of lot more helpful, and a great deal more honest. For the sake of the already destroyed lives, put your heads together to solve this, and stop laying waste to everything just because it’s more “bitchin” to be cynical.

Fact: Possession of an unregistered firearm is a criminal offence.
Fact: Crown attorneys and judges seem to be unable to punish this crime.

Using these two facts to come to the conclusion that making all guns illegal would somehow magically make things better is inane.

You want a solution?
1: Start bloody well enforcing the laws we have. Show people that if they commit crimes, there WILL be consequences. That goes across the board. Start punishing white collar crime as well. Send a message across the board that we are part of a community, and if you will not respect the rights of others in your community, you don't get the privileges.
2: Start fixing some of the root causes. Start treating addiction as an illness, spend the money on rehab beds, and start starving out the gangs. Reduce the motivations of the criminal lifestyle.
3: Help some of the areas where poverty has become systemic and generational to break the cycle. Spend some money on the schools in the area, set up a trade school in some of them... do what it takes.

The Well's article in Mcleans Magazine had an interesting tidbit stating that the Liberal promise to ban handguns had nothing to do with cutting down on gun crime. Rather, the handgun ban was a political ploy used to try and rile up the more wack job of the Conservative MPs into spouting off something crazy. It didn't work. The Conservative war-room maintained an iron grasp on the candidates. So which side of this argument is playing partisan games?

Now, there are arguments that state that gun ownership does not have much of an effect on gun crime. Two of the main ones are:
1. Most gun crime is committed with illegal guns, not legal guns.
2. In cross-national comparisons, the rate of gun crime is roughly the same in countries with strong gun control as that of countries with weak gun control (even in Switzerland which requires gun ownership).

I would like to say that I do not support repealing Canada’s gun ownership laws, but at the same time I believe that banning handguns outright will have no effect on gun crime, even if the ban is on top of other measures to prevent illegal gun ownership.

I absolutely support:
1. Tighter border control to prevent gun smuggling from the US.
2. Tougher sentences on gun crime.
3. A reverse proof of legality for handgun ownership and bail.

Again, adding an outright ban to handguns to the above is unlikely to make any difference on the rate of gun crime.

Another point to think on is this: Any ban of handguns would have to have a government buyback program. This could get really expensive for the government. That money could better be spent in other places that would actually help prevent gun crime.

Indeed, that swath of Ontario from Lake Huron in the west to Georgian Bay in the north, around Lake Simcoe through Hastings to Prince Edward County, is veritably bristling with guns.

Niagara County, too, and Simcoe, Oxford and Wellington -- guns everywhere.

Most districts nearer Toronto have between four and 12 registered gun owners per 100 homes. Much of the 905 area has between two and six.

But right down in the centre of Toronto, standing out like a strobe light, were several neighbourhoods with two or fewer firearms licences per 100 households. From Pearson International Airport to the Don Valley Parkway, and between the 407 and the Lake, Ontario is nearly gun-free, according to the Star.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Sensational shootings, yes. Most gun crimes, not so fast. Do you have stats on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
And the gun crime per capita stat?

---

Look at the most recent complete data available from both countries. In 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 population, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 population was more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states, 746 to our 295 for the population rate.

The situation hasn't improved for Canada while it has for the United States. Toronto had 78 murders in 2005, according to Frum, which represents a 28 percent increase in homicide since 1995.

Our nation has an overall crime rate half again higher than the United States'. Toronto, once the safest large city in North America, now has more muggings, car thefts, and violent assaults per capita than New York City. All of Canada's major provinces would rank among the 20 most dangerous American states. Since American crime rates peaked in the early 1990s, crime has fallen in 48 American states and over 80 percent of America's major cities. Meanwhile, it has risen in six of Canada's ten major providences and seven of its ten largest cities.

Publish in the Independent UK last month (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article340224.ece)

"Figures published this week by the Home Office are expected to show that offences involving guns have soared by as much as 50 per cent in some parts of the country. . .

Outside London, the figures also show a disturbing rise in the use of guns. In Bedfordshire, gun-related offences have risen by 20 per cent over the past two years, from 173 in 2004 to 207 in 2005. The number of cases where people were found carrying a gun more than doubled from 19 to 43 in the same period. . ."

America's crime problem has dramatically improved, while Canada's is becoming seriously worse. Toronto's 78 homicides in 2005 appears to compare favorably to the homicide totals of the three American cities cited by the Star. But those 78 Toronto homicides in 2005 represent a 28% increase over the 61 homicides recorded in Toronto in 1995. Meanwhile, the three U.S. cities cited by the Star each achieved dramatic decreases over the past decade: Chicago down 46% from 823, Washington down 46% from 365, Baltimore down 17% from 322.

More broadly: Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States. Read that again slowly--it seems incredible, but it's true. It's true too that you are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City.

The United States is a huge country, and it will always be possible to find a jurisdiction with shocking crime numbers. The overwhelming majority of Americans, however, live in places that are becoming steadily safer. Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80% of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada's 10 biggest cities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
That wasn't the stat I was asking for. The relevent stat is gun crime per capita in the parts of Ontario with high gun ownership.

---

I don't have that information, its a $500 query off of StatsCanada CANSIM database

I can say definitively that the call for a handgun ban originates in Toronto, and I'd also say it's safe to say that when it comes to handgun crime, Toronto's rate will be higher. Gun crime in rural areas tends to involve rifles and shotguns more than handguns.