Paul Martin, Banning Handguns
It's about the criminals, stupid
by Klaus RohrichFriday, December 9, 2005
It is said that the classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. By that definition, Prime Minister Paul Martin is clearly insane. His most recent idea to curb the rising incidents of gun crime is to ban handguns outright.
While this idea may play well with the hockey moms of Toronto’s Annex, the truth is that Canada already has some of the toughest gun laws in the Western World. Banning handguns outright will have absolutely ZERO effect in reducing the shootings that are becoming an almost daily occurrence in our cities. In fact, there is very strong evidence to support that gun bans have the exact opposite effect.
Britain outlawed gun ownership entirely in 1997 after Thomas Hamilton, a deranged man killed 16 elementary school children during a rage-fed shooting spree. The expectation was that violent crimes would plummet as a result of this new ban. To no one’s surprise but the politicians who enacted the legislation, the exact opposite happened. Gun crime nearly doubled in the years between 1999 and 2003. In December of 2002, the UN surveyed 20 of the world’s leading nations and found that England and Wales had the highest crime rate, higher even than the dreaded United States.
Australia has had a similar experience when they banned gun ownership altogether in 1996. Within the first 12 months following the total ban, Australia-wide homicides were up by 3.2%, while physical assaults increased by nearly 9%. Armed robberies were up a staggering 44% and homicides with firearms tripled! Over a six-year period since totally banning guns, armed robberies increased by 74%. All this in the face of statistics that showed a steady decline in homicides with guns and armed robberies in the 25 years preceding the total ban.
If Mr. Martin were really serious about stopping gun crime, then he would propose the enactment of legislation that deals with the criminals, rather than legislation that punishes the innocent. It seems that Martin philosophy is that the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever more draconian restrictions on those who obey the law.
Last week, two men shot and killed a 25 year-old car salesman on the car lot owned by his family in northwestern Toronto. The first suspect, one Jodie Wheatle, a 20-year old, who once had aspirations of playing professional basketball, was arrested and charged with the murder. When booked, it was discovered that Wheatle was already out on bail, after having been arrested with a loaded .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun that had the serial number filed off. He was nabbed at Yorkdale Shopping Center on November 5th and charged with 10 weapons-related offenses. At his court appearance two days later, Wheatle was set free on $10,000 bail.
That, Mr. Martin is where the real problem with gun crime lies.
If Paul Martin really wanted to do something meaningful about gun violence in Canada’s cities, then he would be calling for a law that imposes an automatic minimum 10-year sentence for anyone convicted of committing a crime utilizing a gun. But the problem is that for the Liberals there would be no payoff in such legislation, as first of all, it would cost a lot more to house the perpetrators in already crowded prisons, which means the Liberals would have less money with which to bribe voters. In addition, such a move would not garner a whole lot of votes. But still, spending money on prisons to lock up criminals is a lot more effective than spending money to register law abiding citizens’ firearms.
So the Liberals are once again performing for their soft audience in Toronto by playing to their misconceptions about gun ownership. I also have a sneaking suspicion (however paranoid that sounds) that the ultimate goal of the Liberals and their "gun control" initiatives, is to comply with the UN’s wish that no one, but police and the military own guns. And that’s the scariest thought of all.
