News   Nov 01, 2024
 2K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.4K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 740     0 

Liberals Propose Handgun Ban

Gun sales rise as ban offered

By Sarah Y oung
The Tri-City News
Dec 28 2005

Qualified buyers hope to keep their new guns

Handgun sales at the Tri-Cities’ only gun shop have skyrocketed since Prime Minister Paul Martin proposed a ban on the weapons earlier this month.

“You might just say Paul Martin is the best salesman I’ve ever had,†said Kelly Abram, owner of the Smokin Gun FX store in Coquitlam.

Abram couldn’t say exactly how many guns he’s sold in the days since Martin’s announcement on Dec. 8, just that it’s “gone way up, all of a sudden.†In the last three days alone Abram sold six handguns, when at this time he’d usually be lucky to have sold even one, he added.

The same is true in municipalities surrounding the Tri-Cities. Gary Allwood, owner of Lock Stock & Barrel in New Westminster, has seen his sales “rise dramatically because of Paul Martin’s announcement, for which I am eternally grateful,†he said.“Let me put it this way, on the Saturday morning after that speech, from 10 a.m. to noon I sold six handguns. Usually in December I’d sell maybe three or four in a week.â€

Wanstall’s gun shop in Maple Ridge hasn’t recorded as many sales, but staff there say they’ve seen a definite spike in traffic through the store.

Martin proposed the handgun ban, along with tougher penalties for gun crimes, to address the escalation of gun violence and make communities safer, saying at the time it would help eliminate the supply of illegal handguns. As an incentive for current gun owners, the proposal includes an amnesty and buy-back program to collect existing handguns, as well as an exemption for target shooters.

But according to Abram, the plan is backfiring and people are being pushed to buy guns before the ban is imposed. “When you tell someone you’re going to ban something, it just makes them want to go out and buy it that much more,†he explained.Several recent purchasers were first-time hand gun owners.
-------------------------
 
Banning them totally would be nice...why does anyone need a gun, anyways?
 
"A gun is not a weapon, Marge, it's a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or... or an alligator."
"If a gun is good enough to protect something as important as a bar, then it's good enough to protect my family."
"I felt an incredible surge of power, like God must feel when he's holding a gun."
 
Banning them totally would be nice...why does anyone need a gun, anyways?

It's a free country. Why should they be banned?

Kevin
 
Good answer. I think I'll go help myself to some money at the banks.
 
Since the UK introduced a gun ban, gun related crimes has increased 3%

Automatic weapons have been completely banned from private ownership since 1937. In 1988 semi-automatic rifles (except for .22 rimfire) were completely banned for private ownership following the Hungerford Massacre the previous year.

As of 1997, handguns have been completely banned for private ownership following legislation passed shortly after the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "Blackpowder" guns, pistols of antique and historical interest, starting pistols and shot pistols for pest control), despite the fact that the official enquiry into the subject, the Cullen Report, did not recommend such action. Even Britain's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; as a result of this law, the British pistol shooting team must live and train outside the country. As a result of shooting being a minority interest sport in the UK, there was relatively little public resistance to the legislation, although it had opponents on both sides of the argument -- those who felt it was too weak, and those who felt it went too far.

From June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. There was also a 14% rise in violent crime in the April-June period (265,800 incidents compared to 223,600 the previous year).[/b[ Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate have argued how this is correctly interpreted with no consen
 
3% change in anything could very well falls within the "noise" category - certainly, it doesn't tell us anything about cause and effect.

AoD
 
That's private property.

Your splitting hairs. It's a free country, right? Or are you just getting to determine what is free for other people?
 
Has it been proven that the majority of guns used in crimes have been stolen from legitimate gun owners in Canada? Or, are most of the guns imported/smuggled from the USA? Or, do we not know for sure. Either way, I resent this campaign motivated move, since PM PM could have passed legislation banning hand guns during his first term, with IMO guaranteed support of the NDP and likely the BQ. I would have rather have seen PM PM push through the gun ban in the first parliament, and then campaign now on SSM; as, if PM is right and the gun ban will be effective, this seems a more important matter than who can get hitched. Don't get me wrong, human rights are still critical in Canada, and needed to be debated and determined in government, but keeping people alive is priority I think. Of course, this argument is only valid if a gun ban would have any significant impact on gun crime.
 
Your splitting hairs.

No, my ends are fine thanks. ;)

But no, you're bringing up entirely different issues. The Government is not free to seize private property except under extreme circumstances, and neither are you. If the Government can come up with a reason that outweighs the protections afforded to private property by the Consitution, they might be able to do so, just as you might be able to.

Are you saying that you have sufficient justification to seize handguns or money?
 
Your justification for handguns was that "it's a free country" and that you needed no other argument. I was just following your line of reasoning.
 

Back
Top