# Harper Makes No confidence motion. Canadian government likely to fall. Election time! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591 "2005-11-24T16:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591/221 "2005-12-13T18:49:34Z")
On a completely gun-unrelated note, Stephen Harper is spending his face off. I suppose it’s on primarily “Conservative” sorts of things, but the virtual $$ is flying in his neighbourhood! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591/222 "2005-12-13T21:13:51Z")
> [@Balduran](#): > > ## Martin’s plan to ban handguns is a 5 point strategy which includes: > > ``` > * Toughening penalties by re-introducing legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, by doubling the mandatory minimum sentences for key gun crimes. > > * Encouraging community-based action by intensifying prevention efforts. This would include a $50-million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund to focus on youth at risk and continued investment in skills development programs to engage young people in the workforce. > > * Investing in law enforcement, including $225 million over five years for an RCMP Advanced Community Safety and Rapid Enforcement Team, $10 million a year for 10 years to increase the number of graduating RCMP officers, $50 million over five years for a Rural Community Safety Plan to provide resources for crime prevention initiatives in communities with less that 100,000 residents, and investments to stem the illegal smuggling of firearms into Canada. > > ``` Balduran, none of those three points have anything to do with a handgun ban. So in point of fact, these are NOT part of a “five point plan for banning handguns.” They’re part of a plan to fight crime. You could do all those things without banning handguns. > [@](#): > > Also, I don’t think one should limit the effect of handguns to just how many deaths they cause. Look at these poor folks being terrorised at Jane and Finch. Thugs with guns moving into a community affects the whole community, not just those being killed. I have been listening on CBC today about the case with Tookie Williams. Experts talking about how the Crips, and gangs in general absolutely destroy a community. The area gets covered in graffitti, businesses and anybody who can afford to leaves, place goes to hell. Again, none of that is the result of legally owned handguns. It is the result of illegal guns, mostly smuggled into the country. A handgun ban would not fix any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591/223 "2005-12-13T21:38:12Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > On a completely gun-unrelated note, Stephen Harper is spending his face off. I suppose it’s on primarily “Conservative” sorts of things, but the virtual $$ is flying in his neighbourhood! This actually makes sense. The PC’s were at one time a strong national party, and have seemingly been reduced virtually to a right-wing Prairies-only group, the equivalent of the SoCreds or the PQ. This is their one strong chance to put themselves back into the mainstream of Canadian thought. If they lose big this election, they turn into Canada’s equivalent of the British Liberals … a surviving afterthought on the political scene. ---
**Author:** ![Balduran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cc9497/32.png) [@Balduran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balduran)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591/224 "2005-12-14T01:10:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Balduran, none of those three points have anything to do with a handgun ban. So in point of fact, these are NOT part of a “five point plan for banning handguns.” They’re part of a plan to fight crime. You could do all those things without banning handguns. The words used on the liberal party website are Prime Minister Martin’s five-part strategy to ban handguns and make safer communities. Perhaps you could do those without banning handguns, but they are part of the handgun ban proposal. It is reasonable that stiffer penalties and reducing the flow of smuggled guns should be part of a handgun ban strategy. > [@](#): > > Again, none of that is the result of legally owned handguns. It is the result of illegal guns, mostly smuggled into the country. A handgun ban would not fix any of this. Most of the illegal guns are those smuggled into the country, but not all. The rest are mainly those stolen from legal collections. I have seen estimates from 5% to 30% for illegal handguns from stolen collections. I imagine the reason most of the illegal guns are comprised of those smuggled is because it is easier to smuggle than to steal from a collection or store. However, if smuggling becomes harder, more people will turn to stealing them from collections or stores to obtain the weapons. Therefore it seems very reasonable to me, that if you want to have a comprehensive plan to get rid of all the illegal handguns, you must not only stop the flow of those smuggled across the border, but also do away with legal ownership. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591/225 "2005-12-14T06:13:33Z")
> [@Balduran](#): > > Most of the illegal guns are those smuggled into the country, but not all. The rest are mainly those stolen from legal collections. I have seen estimates from 5% to 30% for illegal handguns from stolen collections. I imagine the reason most of the illegal guns are comprised of those smuggled is because it is easier to smuggle than to steal from a collection or store. However, if smuggling becomes harder, more people will turn to stealing them from collections or stores to obtain the weapons. Therefore it seems very reasonable to me, that if you want to have a comprehensive plan to get rid of all the illegal handguns, you must not only stop the flow of those smuggled across the border, but also do away with legal ownership. So you’re going to reduce the availability of illegal guns by making currently legal guns illegal. Oookay. That’ll work! You’re gonna have to explain how this is going to work, because to be honest, it’s pretty obvious to me that it won’t. There’s no reasonable plan on the table to crack down on the smuggling of guns in any event. C’mon, surely you can see this is pure posturing, and it won’t actually help reduce crime? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-makes-no-confidence-motion-canadian-government-likely-to-fall-election-time/332591.md?page=11)