....and while you are at it get rid of the elected officials and social in-activists who refuse to put their ass on the line and stand up to this garbage.
*Get your local, provincial and federal elected officials to get the government of the day to bring in gun courts where people found in possession of an illegal handgun gets a swift trial, faces consecutive sentencing, mandatory terms and incarceration in "gulag" style camps in the far north.
*When Crimestoppers publish a story and include details like; "a red mazda was seen leaving the area," think about who drives a red mazda in your area and report it to the police.
*When you child says he say so and so with a handgun report it to the police.
*...and the list goes on and on and I will concede that fear is a factor in people refusing to do their part but all this says is that the communities that suffer most seem to be doing the least.
| Are you in favour of a complete ban on handguns? | ||
| Yes |  | 5% |
| No | | 95% |
| Total Votes for this Question: 22496 | ||
"Toronto gets more dangerous everyday
Anyone would think we're in the USA
We'll be minding our own business
When a coward shoots and kills us
City Council, help us ban handguns today."
With poetry, raw prose, folk music and the unique, if not mellifluous, melodies of the septet called the Raging Grannies, Toronto came out yesterday to buttress Mayor David Miller's campaign to ban handguns across Canada.
Wisely, the gun lobby stayed away.
Someone extolling the virtues of gun ownership – even as grieving moms, weeping fathers and outraged citizens clamoured for the ban on all guns which, they said, "serve no purpose at all but to kill" – would have been anathema.
To be sure, there are arguments to be made on the futility of handgun bans. Yes, guns don't kill, people do. And yes, banning handguns won't keep guns out of the murderous hands of criminals and gang bangers. In fact, such arguments can come from the unlikeliest of sources sometimes.
Gun bans lead to increase in violent crime
5:28 PM ETJohn Lott [Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland and author of Freedomnomics]: "The District of Columbia's request for cert made a simple argument: Whatever one thinks of the Second Amendment, banning handguns is a "reasonable regulation" to protect public safety. Indeed, most of the city's brief focused on public safety arguments. The problem for the city is that anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see that D.C.'s murder and violent crime rates went up, not down, after the ban. Prior to the ban DC's murder rate was falling. After the ban, DC's murder rate rose, and only once fell below what it was in 1976. But it is not just DC that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. While DC points to Chicago's ban to justify its own, Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982. Taking a page from recent Supreme Court cases, D.C. points to gun bans in other countries as evidence that others think that gun bans are desirable. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning guns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give D.C. and its supporters some pause. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.D.C.'s brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. Similar experiences have been seen with other bans, such as those in Ireland and Jamaica.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/11/
gun-bans-lead-to-increase-in-violent.php
No comments:
Post a Comment