Less than a month ago, Martin stood at the side of Toronto Mayor David Miller in the Jane and Finch area and declared: "We're going to take handguns out of our communities."
Since then, a government plan to crack down on gun crime has now become a policy plank in the Liberal campaign platform for the Jan. 23 vote.
Of the 75 homicides in Toronto this year, 50 have been committed with handguns. Police estimate half have been committed with handguns illegally smuggled into Canada, and a good portion of the others were committed with stolen weapons.
Gun-control advocates have said that any clampdown on handguns, then, must also deal with border-tightening measures and gun theft, not simply extended bans. With Martin heading to the border city of Windsor tomorrow, where crimes involving firearms are also a major concern, it's largely expected that his anti-gun platform will contain some measures to address the smuggling problem as well.
Handguns are already largely prohibited in Canada, in the wake of a law that came into effect in 1998, banning all .22- and .32-calibre handguns with a barrel length less than 105 millimetres. But there were big exceptions — collectors, sports shooters and many previous owners were allowed to hang on to their handguns. There are currently estimated to be about 300,000 weapons in Canada.
Liberal sources were not releasing details of the proposed ban, but it is clearly aimed at locking support in urban areas such as Toronto where the party is already ahead of the Conservatives and New Democrats.
What it does to the Liberals' hopes in more rural areas or the West however, where gun control is more controversial, remains to be seen.
In terms of a "total ban," as it's billed, the tighter handgun controls could include:
Even greater restrictions on who is allowed to own handguns, with fewer exceptions.
A ban on the sale of handguns, as Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has been discussing.
An extension of measures to encompass even more weapons under the ban.
Conservatives have not unveiled their own gun-crime platform yet in this campaign, but it's not expected to include any ban. Instead, Tory sources have told the Star's Sean Gordon that the party will focus on stiffer mandatory sentences, consecutive sentencing for offenders and new laws to cover the use of firearms in other offences.
The NDP is expected to focus on border-control measures in its platform and better ways of getting at the root causes of gang and gun crime in communities.
Full Article:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1133995815725&call_pageid=968332188492
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.
This also plays right into the hands of all the registry opponents that said that it would be used to confiscate legally obtained weapons. Watch the numbers of people willing to register their long rifles plummet.
Possessing one would then be "de facto" proof of illigal importation as well as possession.
Enforcement of this would be a huge task for Canada Customs, at all border crossings.
I guess we have to agree that because of human depravity, not all criminal activity can be stopped. It can only be limited.
Does it seem to anyone else like Harper and Martin are just fishing for hot-button issues, trying various things until one catches? Do they have any idea what Canadians are actually concerned about?
---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.
That would probably make most people think twice.
Of course, there would be grey areas to sort out - like using a gun in a situation of self defense.
People should be help accountable for their *own* actions, and treated like responsible adults until they prove that they do not deserve such consideration.
And if the state is not going to protect the rights of individuals to their lives and property, then the basic social contract on which all criminal law is based is rendered null and void. As members of a civilized society, we surrendered our right to personal retribution in exchange for protection by the state.
To those who say that criminal justice should not based on punishment, I say go to hell! Punishment *has* to be part of the system. People have to be held accountable for their actions, and society has to feel that an offender has been punished for his actions.
That's the problem with the whole "root causes" concept. It ignores individual responsibility, and gives anyone who perceives of themselves as "disadvantaged" the freedom to violate the rights of others who they consider "privileged", and thus fair game.
Liberals have a real soft spot for criminals. I hope the electorate, most of whom own property and wish to feel safe when walking down the street, keeps that in mind.
Hitler did the same in Germany, as did many south american dictators. Always for people's safety of course...
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Sorry Jesse, but I lost what you mean here. Hopefully you are not suggesting "murder" as human nature or the attempt to "stomp" it, is futile..