Well, election madness is upon us, whether we wanted it or not. And one of the things we know inherently is that we are about to be subjected to spin on an unprecedented scale.
I just watched a local news station do a story on the dirty politics between Stephane Dion and the conservative government. They actually said that Dion wanted to “increase” the restrictions on several kinds of firearms, “including the type that was used in the Montreal Dawson College shooting.” Then the story ends and they go on with the next really quickly to a service for those who recently lost their lives in the CF.
What many people don’t already know is that at the time that massacre occurred, those Beretta Storm’s were restricted firearms. Now they are already prohibited, at least according to my local gun store. As are all bullpup arms. So how can they increase any further restrictions on a prohibited firearm?
This upsets me because they don’t bother to explain to the public the difference between non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. They just use an angle that serves their purpose — at the shameful expense of those victims.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could do a blog entry on firearms and this liberal spin thats been going through the news and schools. Criminals don’t get guns by going through the RCMP, they illegally import them, or steal them from registered lawful owners because of the registry itself. Granted, handguns have been registered for decades, but this longarm registry needs to go — and besides, you can’t hide a 44″ to 48″ rifle in your pants. There are big lists by the NRA using real statistics to show that its better for us to be a lawfully armed society. They show that as criminals are more comfortable with the idea that you are not armed, crime increases. And saying that guns kill people is like saying spoons made Oprah fat. If there weren’t guns and people were so dead-set on killing, there would be knives, and thats already a problem. But a person who thinks of pulling a knife on a lawful citizen who might have a carry licence would think several times before doing something stupid. You can sort in a list the States in an increasing order of gun control, and they are nearly the same states with the same order of increasing crime. That should speak volumes, but the majority of people in Canada don’t recognize that each state have set their own laws, and the states where people are allowed to carry, there is virtually zero crime.
I do agree that in Canada there should remain laws about concealed weapons. We should be a shall-carry instead of a may-carry society, and wear it proudly on our hip as a symbol of lawfulness. But for whatever reason they think we’ll have shootouts and high noon duelings, even though dueling (with guns or swords) has been illegal for a very long time. That is, mutually agreeing to a fight without fists. Mutual agreement of any public display of violence should be against the law, and it is in regards to disturbing the peace. But we get youtube’s of schoolyard fights and the person who never wanted to fight at all has to save face and pretend it was ok on camera.
The “40 reasons for gun control” posted around the magazines, people don’t see that it was written as a criticism for gun control. You have probably seen it around but if you haven’t I’ll attach it below for your own humour.
Thank you very much for reading,
I enjoy reading you,
40 Reasons For Gun Control
Significant portions of this article are excerpted from Michael Z. Williamson’s excellent and witty piece, “It’s amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control”
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense — give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p.125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arm” refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Here is some world history on gun control:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953,about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government. A program costing Australian tax payers more than $500 million dollars (sound familiar?)
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent(yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
You won’t see this data on the Canadian evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Criminals are criminals BECAUSE they DON’T and WON’T OBEY the LAW (as if that needed an explanation but in Canada it does)
Now lets look at it from a Canadian perspective. The following is taken from a news report re Sheila Fraser’s report on the gun registry
The former Liberal government hid more than $60 million in unexpected costs from Parliament, left no written record of important decisions taken by officials, and
may have broken numerous contracting rules in its handling of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser has found.
The Canadian Firearms Program, which the Conservatives are expected to start dismantling, perhaps as early as today, has incurred $87.3 million in startup costs since 2002 three times the budgeted amount for a computer system that does not yet work, Fraser revealed in her long-awaited report.
She found that Parliament was “misinformed” about the true costs of the registry.
Of the computer startup costs, $60.8 million $39 million in 2002-03 and $21.8 million in 2003-04 was not brought to Parliament for proper approval in contravention of the government’s own accounting policies.
And after all the above BS here is the real kicker:
The auditor general’s report (2006) also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety.
“The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms”.