Garneau on gun control

by Aaron Wherry

The Liberal leadership candidate considers a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

The Montreal MP said Tuesday he’d look at banning semi-automatic weapons, like the military-style, .223-calibre Bushmaster used in last week’s massacre.

“There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary,” Garneau told The Canadian Press. ”That kind of weapon, to me, definitely — well, it is (already) a restricted weapon but one should look at not allowing those things.”

Mr. Garneau previously talked about gun control measures he’d support two weeks ago. CP looks at the laws around the Ruger Mini-14 and the Beretta Cx4 Storm. Glen McGregor looks at the AR-15.




Browse

Garneau on gun control

  1. If it’s unsuitable for shooting a duck or a deer…..ban it.

  2. Is there an additional penalty when using a banned firearm in the commission of a crime? If not, I would suggest that merely banning such weapons would not be terribly effective due to our neighbour to the South. It would also be necessary to attach significant additional jail time when convicted of using a banned weapon during a crime. And perhaps additional penalties for mere possession (definitely *should* be the case for automatic weapons, if not already).

    • Yes there are additional penalties for using a banned firearm. You would be charged for owning a banned firearm.

    • I expect most people planning an armed crime don’t expect to be caught and wouldn’t factor in the extra penalty between a banned and restricted weapon. so there won’t be much deterrence It’s also possible the sentence would get “Kienappeled” out and subsumed into the larger sentence for the crime itself.

      • Deterrence is only one aspect. The other is that keeping such an individual locked up for an *additional* X years would almost certainly be a good thing. For better or worse, I have little tolerance for perpetrators of violent crimes.

  3. Of course he’d play politics with this non-issue. Typical Liberal, finding a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. When was the last time one of these guns that was legally registered and owned was used in a crime *in Canada*?

    Just another politician playing politics after a tragedy.

    • From the CBC story: ‘Several weeks ago, Garneau proposed a four-point plan for tightening gun control in Canada, including further limiting access to assault weapons.’

      It’s not like Garneau’s coming out of left field here.

      • Fine, it’s not coming out of left field. But he’s definitely using the tragedy down south to further his own political ambitions. I also don’t like how he’s making it seem like these guns are a recurring problem in Canada, which they’re not.

        • Maybe if he threw that into a speech I’d entertain that notion… but if a reporter sticks a mic into his face and asks him what his take is on this situation, he can’t really say nothing, can he?

    • I don’t know for sure that Lepine owned his Mini-14 legally, but I know for certain that the Baretta Cx4 Storm that Gill used at Dawson College was legally owned.

      • Fair enough. I still don’t see that as a reason to go and ban the things outright. Deeper background checks on people who apply for restricted firearm licenses, sure (I’m actually amazed at how easy getting the license is). But every one of these tragedies is perpetrated by a lunatic who may just have found another way to do the damage he sought.

        • The problem with targeting the lunatics rather than the guns is the difficulty in identifying the lunatics prior to their lunacy manifesting itself in a slaughter. The guns, on the other hand, are comparatively easy to identify and control. People have rights – such as privacy and due process of law – whereas guns do not.

          I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people make this asinine argument that we need to go after the mentally ill and leave those poor misunderstood guns alone. Of course it would be better to identify and divert the next crazy before he tries to set the new record for mass slaughter, that goes without saying. But given that we live in a free society, and given that even highly trained mental health professionals can’t reliably say who’s truly dangerous and who’s just a little odd, given that the mind is incredibly complex while guns are incredibly simple, we need to deal with the guns first.

          Personally, I would not allow anything bigger than a three round clip. If you can’t kill Bambi with three shots then you need to take up fishing. And you target shooters? That target is going to stay right there where you left it while you take the time to reload. Three rounds. That’s it, that’s all.

          Let’s take care of that first, then we’ll tackle the problem of mental health.

          • Beauty!

          • I would suggest that mental health issues kill far more people on any given day than guns do. I’d also argue that mental health issues are more difficult for the friends and family of the ill, than a guy with a gun.

            I mean, 15 out of every 100,000 Canadians will commit suicide in any given year, while approximately 0.6 / 100,000 Canadians will be murdered by a gun. So which is the bigger problem? The one that causes more deaths, or the one that’s easier to “fix”?

          • It’s not an either/or type of thing. Suicide is a problem, no doubt, but it doesn’t overshadow mass murder. In fact, the problem with many of these recent examples, it seems to me, is that young men who previously might have simply killed themselve are now choosing suicide as the final act in their killing sprees.

            What has changed that makes suicidal young men decide that ending their own lives is too mild a statement, that they must end their own lives and as many additional lives as they possibly can? It’s obviously a lack of empathy, but what the hell is causing it?

            I am interested in causes as well as effects. But, having said that, we have to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects as soon as possible and leave the causes for the longer term. Limiting the killing power of weapons is not a cure all, it’s a fail safe; that is, a measure designed to limit the damage not entirely eliminate it.

          • That may be the best comment I’ve read here in the past year.

          • That’s a very kind comment, thanks to you and to Emily and Pickin as well.

          • Very well said

  4. “We think it is poor form for a politician or a special interest group to try to push a legislative agenda on the back of any tragedy.”

    – NRA, after 2008 Northern Illinois shootings

    “Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy.”

    – NRA, after 2009 Binghampton massacre

    “At this time, anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate.”

    – NRA, after 2011 shooting spree that wounded Gabrielle Giffords

    “There will be an appropriate time down the road to engage in political
    and policy discussions.”

    – NRA, after 2012 Aurora massacre

    “NRA will not have any comment.”

    – NRA, after 2012 Newtown massacre

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *