The New Look At Gun Violence In BC Needs To Tread Softly

Monday, February 16, 2009 03:45 AM

The crackdown of gang violence using guns is a good one, however if the provincial government hopes to get the entire population on side, they had better make certain that legitimate gun owners feel confident they are not being targeted in any new sweep.

There are 212,316 licensed firearms owners in BC, who have licensed 874,496 registered firearms. By contrast in the first half of 2008 the Tactical Analysis unit recorded a total of 2,537 firearms seizures in Canada. Of that number 1,393 (55%) were crime guns, meaning they had the serial number filed off, were used in the commission of a crime, came into the country illegally or had been altered from replica’s to work.

Those statistics clearly point out that the average long gun owner and for that matter the recreational shooters that were forced to register their guns during the gun registry have not now or ever been the problem with guns in Canada.

Ontario has suggested that they would like to see a total ban on hand guns, which is no more than political gamesmanship. The hand guns that are being used in the commission of an offence have in recent times been either brought into Canada generally from Washington State illegally, purchased by movie set operators and then filtered into the crooks hands, or replicas that have been altered to become fully functional.

While the number of guns registered in BC is 874 thousand, a further 30% have never been registered by their owners who feared what government had in mind when they introduced the legislation. To this point they have been right in their analysis, that they are not the root cause of the problem of gun violence. The duck and deer hunter are not responsible for the problem of gun violence and it is nice to see that the report by Tony Heemskerk and Eric Davies points that out.

In England a total band was placed on hand guns, the result has been that illegal firearms, in one case machine guns, returned to normal from replicas are the order of the day. The crooks may have guns, the public does not. The report commissioned by the provincial government suggest that a total ban on hand guns in Ontario, as they would like to see, would be difficult to administer and have little or not affect.

If the provincial government, in its effort to set up a special task force to deal with the increasing use of guns by gangs, does not indicate to the regular owners of guns that they are not the target of the new crackdown, they run the risk of alienating the very people, the legitimate gun owners for coming on side. Coupled with that 212,000 voters voting en mass is a force that no party should overlook.

One should keep in mind that the actual number of gun deaths in BC has deceased since 2001; although projections are that the gun deaths will reach 51 in 2008, they will not exceed the 2005 figures of 63 deaths.

Care and caution should be the words of the day.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: downnotout on February 16 2009 5:46 AM

should start off with the gun makers. Very few of the gun buying public have need of semi or automatic weapons so why are they still being made.

Posted by: palomino on February 16 2009 6:58 AM

Perhaps this video will help explain the problem downnotout.

http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=1363196

click on VBS at the top of the page.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on February 16 2009 7:59 AM

Max speed for cars is 110km Why are cars still been made that go faster?...There is No need for Booze Why is it still been made? downnotout take your head out your liberal ass.

Posted by: yellow shovel on February 16 2009 8:21 AM

I remember seeing a simliar documentry on that same city years ago. Bet theres no home invasions or drive bys there. downnotout ....you don't make any sense at all....the goverment should take away your keyboard.

Posted by: beesknees on February 16 2009 10:51 AM

I agree with downnotout. What's the need for semi- and auto- firearms for the general public? Shooting sport? Hah! Go find something else to provide yourselves a diversion of sorts, boys. Same goes for handguns.

I've got nothing against gun ownership, and I'm also one of the guys who thinks the gun registry is some weak legislation that panders to the left leaning politicians out there. Was never well thought out, and definitely badly carried out. Should be scrapped.

I think this is also one subject where there are no (or very few) independent reports about gun ownership or use, or statistics about gun use and violent crime, either the increase or decrease there of. All the reports coming out are from one group or another with some agenda. It's so easy to poke holes in some of their reports, I think in this case, the reports are like a street light for a staggering drunk - more for support than light.

Posted by: metalman on February 16 2009 1:31 PM

I am a law abiding citizen of this country.
I own guns, including a handgun.
I participated in the farcical national gun registry out of fear of criminal prosecution. I am a hunter, for sustenance only. I enjoy targets and trap shooting. If anyone is against more goverment intrusion it is me. I believe VERY strongly in freedom, and self defence.
I have only one question:
Why does anyone 'need' an automatic weapon?
metalman.

Posted by: downnotout on February 16 2009 3:17 PM

in reply to some of the above posts. I think everybody should have a gun or guns that way if he or her have a problem with a B&E or asualt they have the means to protect themselves [I know I would ] and those people should be given medals

Posted by: yellow shovel on February 16 2009 4:57 PM

Do people really think if automatic or semi automatic firearms were banned ,the thugs would not use bolt action or single shots? Whats next Willshire self sharpening knives? Any thing, whether it be a gun , knife ,rollin pin or a car don't kill by itself. Get rid of the germ operating these devices....and I think the problem might be solved.

Posted by: Quaddin on February 16 2009 6:03 PM

Well here we are again debating gun violence with a bunch of pansie liberals. It doesn't matter what you ban. You could ban all hand guns, long guns and bow and arrows, it will not make it any harder for criminals to get firearms if they want them. It just creates a bigger black market trade in a commodity. Get that through your one sided thick heads. Handguns in Canada have been regulated since the 30's and it has not had any effect of the criminal element what so ever.
Besides if you ban all firearms what would the general public use to protect themselves should the need arise. Oh crap, sorry forgot. We are supposed to call a policeman. I can dial 911 and by the time one of these Rambo's get there all they will need is a piece of chalk to draw the outline around the corpse.
I would rather face a group of 12 folks above ground than be lowered into a hole by a group of 6.

I often wonder if one of these anti gun folks like "downnotout" & "beesknees" would have a different out look on things if they were faced with a life and death situation. Would they rather have a handgun for protection or would they be satisfied with a trying to fend of an attacker with possibly a good book of poetry. Oh of course, they will call a policeman with a gun to protect them. Good luck.

I personal prefer not to gamble and hope the police get here in time. In poker Smith & Wesson beats a royal flush any day.

For those who think ONLY the police and military should have firearms. Think again and get your head out of the sand.
What do you think dictators are made of, Girl Guides.

Posted by: fsilber on February 17 2009 5:28 AM

So long as police agencies can buy bullets for a mere $0.25 each, there is no excuse for the government's inability to stop violent crime. As long as the government doesn't prevent the commission of forceful felonies (rape, armed muggings, car-jacking, breaking-and-entering), there is no excuse for denying Canadians handguns for self-protection.

You have a _right_ not to be robbed, and a government that forces you to put up with it is worse than the criminals.

Posted by: Harbinger on February 17 2009 12:50 PM

If you value yer life, do not carry an unconcealed stapler.

Posted by: caranmacil on February 17 2009 10:29 PM

This is another case where the tyranny of the majority is poised to take away freedoms from the minority. I think that the views expressed by beesknees and others would be contemptible if they were not so dangerous and mainstream. It is morally wrong to seek the prohibition of something just because you dont see the need for it. We should not have to agrue for our rights to own something or to do something if these things have not been shown to do great harm to the public at large. In this case, there is little or no evidence to sugest that banning legal gun ownership will eradicate or even significantly reduce gun homicide rates. The word 'significantly' is important. THe old arguement that 'if even one life were saved it would be worth it' is NOT valid in a society that allows so many things and practices that cause death (fast cars, dangerous sports, alcohol, dog ownership, non essential driving in suboptimal conditions, marriage, etc).
People need to be VERY careful when calling for the curtailment of peoples rights and freedoms. We think of ourselves as living in a free country. The fact is that every year we stray further from freedom. While banning handgun ownership may not affect you, the next issue might.
For the record I have, off and on for many years carried a handgun as a tool in my profession. I did this legally and by necessity. A long gun would not have been practical. There are alos a large number of people who use handguns in a legal sport. It is at best inconsiderate and at worst immoral to seek to deprive these folk of their pursuit just because you yourself do not see it as necessary.
I am confused though. Just where are all the 'automatic weapons ' people are talking about here? If you are talking about fully automatic weapons then take heart, they are already banned. If you are talking about semi autos, then grow up. There isnt a lot of difference in killing power between a revolver and a semi auto.
Metalman, i see you choose to make some dintinctions for yourself. Perhaps you ought to conside the hypocrasy of asking why anyone 'needs' an automatic weapon. Unless you want to try to convince 1 and a half million southern city folks why you 'need' a handgun (good luck) or, for that matter, why you 'need' to hunt for sustenance when you could just get some veggies and tofu at overwaitee? My point being that once you start demanding people justify their needs, it isnt long before you are asked to justify your own. In these times, when rural populations are shrinking and people are growing up thinking that meat grows in plastic wrapped packets (without skin) or should not be eaten at all, people should wary about the whole issue of justifying our civil (or for that matter, human) rights.

If you want to take away someones rights, it ought to be hard as hell to do, just because we are supposed to live in a country which cherishes freedom.