Police chiefs say a ban on handguns won't help stem gun violence. (Ontario Provincial Police)

Police chiefs say handgun ban not needed, wouldn’t work

Canadian police chiefs say they don’t support ban on handguns despite fears that handgun violence is escalating in some cities across the country.

The head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says no new law banning handguns is needed because strong firearms laws already exist.

Vancouver Police Chief Adam Palmer says that in the majority of cases involving gun violence, the handguns being used are already illegal and it makes no sense to ban something that it already illegal.

“In every single case there are already offences for that,” Palmer said Wednesday in Calgary, at the conclusion of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s annual meeting.

“They’re already breaking the law and the criminal law in Canada addresses all those circumstances.

The president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Adam Palmer (seen in 2015) said Wednesday,”The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.” (CBC)

“The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.”

Palmer’s comments came a day after a meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Toronto Mayor John Tory, who has long called for a total handgun ban.

Tory repeated the call–again–earlier this month following a holiday weekend that saw 14 separate shooting incidents in Canada’s largest city, prompting renewed calls for a handgun ban.

Trudeau declined to call for an outright ban, saying Liberal Party’s election platform in this fall’s general election would include “strengthening gun control.”

Their meeting came a day after the federal, provincial and municipal governments announced they were pooling $4.5 million to provide funding for Toronto police.

In his comments on Wednesday, Chief Palmer said handguns would likely always exist in Canada because of geography.

The police chiefs say Canada will never be rid of handguns because of our proximity to the U.S. (Mia Sheldon/CBC)

“People can’t be naive to the realities of how it works with organized crime and smuggling,” he said.

“There will always be an influx of guns from the United States to Canada. Heroin is illegal in Canada too, but we have heroin in Canada.”

How much the handgun debate will play in this fall’s election remains to be seen.

The Liberals will likely focus on Bill C-71–passed earlier this year–which introduced enhanced background checks and mandatory record-keeping for retailers.

The Official Opposition Conservatives are against a ban while the New Democratic Party says cities should have the right to pass a handgun ban if they wish.

With files from CBC, CTV, CP

Categories: Health, International, Politics, Society
Tags: , , ,

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet Netiquette guidelines.

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1. RCInet.ca’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. RCInet.ca reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3. RCInet.ca’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish or in one of the two official languages, English or French. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.

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


8 comments on “Police chiefs say handgun ban not needed, wouldn’t work
  1. Avatar Lorne Tardiff says:

    WHY A Ban , Less than 1% of Homicides are caused by guns including family Violence.

  2. Avatar Ruben Reddekopp says:

    One would have to be tottaly brain dead to think that gun confiscation will make even a tiny bit of adifference- CRIMINALS DONT CARE!! I would love to meet with Justin Trudeau and hear him say it would make a difference and he can guarantee that! If itvis not not true in a few years he gets lifetime prison for lying and cheating one more tine

  3. Avatar Scott A Davidson says:

    The Canadian Liberal agenda is not looking at the facts in front of them. If the everyday person can research the information that is readily available through a number of information outlets. Why can the Liberals not acknowledge its existence and see the real problem.

    I’ll answer that question:
    It’s easier to try and ban firearms in general then to combat the organizations importing the firearms for profit and use. It’s easier to take something from a law abiding group then from an illegal network of criminals that use them in their trade of illegal activities.
    A nation without the ability to defend itself is a nation easily controlled as well. If the powers that be know that they have no fear of unrest from the population, they can determine the course of action without fear of reprisals.

    The illegal elements in the nation have no fear of the lawful citizens because they know that even with firearms, if they use them they to are considered criminals under Canadian Law. And the Law Enforcement Agencies are frustrated from lack of funds and resources to combat the illegal violence, because our government finds it easier to disarm the population then fix the problem of growing violence.

    Until Canadians stop the Politically Correctness attitudes and stand up for their rights as Citizens we will be cattle’d into the most expedient way to allow our selves to be controlled in a regime instead of a Democracy.
    This is more then just Gun Control, it is Population Control.

  4. Avatar Scott says:

    Why don’t the government and police apply stiffer penalties?
    Take off the kids gloves and deal with punishing criminals and not the law biding citizens.
    1- first offence, time served and a mandatory life ban from all weapons
    This will be subject to the crime and violence level.
    2- second offence, life in prison and mandatory lifetime counseling, education.
    This will be subject to the crime and level of violence.
    3 – third offence, especially with a firearm and/or extreme violence causing death, the death penalty.
    Don’t pay the government or business man $100,000+ a year to house these people who refuse or are not capable of changing their ways. No TV’s, no weight rooms, absolutely no luxuries that people on the outside were robbed of.

    At what point do you punish the criminals and not the victims? I don’t even have the right in this country to protect my family, my property or myself against a criminal without becoming one too. How the heck is that even right on any level. How can we continue to let this be the norm? I get fair and equal treatment for all, but buddy shoots someone in a violent act and a legitimate law biding gun owner gets his gun taken away. Now let’s be clear about what I’m saying,I spend anywhere from $250 to $3000+ on a custom gun and you don’t get reimbursed. Your expect to hand them in.
    Now correct me if I’m wrong on that last statement but whose going to pay the owner? The police, the government(i.e. the taxpayers)or the company that built the guns? Someone is taking the hit for this proposed handgun law and it’s not the criminals
    For once listen to the police chief and change the laws that aren’t working.
    In the words of Archie Bunker to his son in law Meathead when they were debating the same problem, “Would you feel better if they used a pencil?” Huhhhhh

  5. Avatar David powell says:

    We have strong hand gun laws. It is the people that is the problem and illegal hand guns. I agree with the chief of police. We have strong gun laws. We do not need something else that will not work.

  6. Avatar B.Long says:

    Those that want to ban or confiscate either handguns or the “evil ” semiautomatics ,because they view the “Gun” as the inanimate object committing the crimes are irrational . How can we allow irrational fearful people control over the property of millions of proven by test, rational people ? By test I mean passing strict exams by certified instructors , background checked while awaiting licencing , then checked daily for any infractions ?On top of the rationale , there is mountains of proof that bans , especially in cities , haven’t worked , at least in North America . What sort of rationality test have these people undergone ? and if it were their money that had to be used in a buyback , it wouldn’t happen .

    • Avatar John Chapman says:

      I agree with you. It is very unsettling to be confronted with the fact that policy in our country is being driven by people who essentially have a phobia or, for those actually there when Lepine committed his act, perhaps PTSD. The event happend, the laws were drastically changed and no similar event has transpired in the 30 years following. Kind of seems like a “problem solved” situation. Then the Liberals brought in C-71 with even more restrictions. Yet the Liberals seem unwilling to see what effect C-71 will have, are assuming that C-71 and the previous changes in the 90’s will fail and so here we are today faced with a massive confiscation of private property based on that 30 year old event.
      My other complaint about this is that they apparently intend to use an OIC to begin the massive confiscation – a purpose for which it was never envisioned. Such an enormous move demands the level of scrutiny and sober consideration that is provided by a bill and accompanying debate. Why is Trudeau against that???

  7. Avatar Jim Hislop says:

    What seldom [if ever] gets mentioned is the reality that banning handguns will serve the purpose of making them a much more valuable commodity. Thefts, international smuggling and illegal trafficking in this class of firearm will become a much more lucrative enterprise for the criminal element in society. The net result will be more guns on the streets of our cities. Politicians and others who believe that banning handguns will reduce the problem of gun violence in Canadian cities are naive to the realities of the street.