It’s been a bad few weeks; two dead and five wounded in the Eaton Centre shootings, 2 dead and 23 injured in the recent Scarborough shootings, 12 dead and 53 injured in the Colorado nightmare. Daily, we are subject to the horrors of gun violence in our cities. I am by no means an authority on the issue of gun control, but would offer a few reflections.
There are many essential differences between Canadian and American gun laws, but the proximity of the two countries coupled with the high frequency of illegal smuggling of firearms to Canada, ostensibly “homogenizes” access to firearms in both countries. According to a recent RCMP report, “The United States is the primary source for smuggled firearms or firearms parts entering Canada, due in part to its close proximity, differences in gun control legislation, and a large firearms manufacturing base.”1
Consider some facts. As of 2010, there were 7,646,699 registered firearms in Canada.2 Canada ranks 13th in guns per capita. The U.S. ranks first, with approximately 3.5 times as many guns per capita as Canada. Of course, a major difference between the two countries is the registration requirements for guns, the availability of handguns in the U.S., and the fundamental difference that Canadian gun laws are federal, while in the U.S., they vary state to state, but with the overall constitutional philosophy of the right of Americans to bear arms.
Obviously, there is no direct correlation between the availability of guns and the incidence of gun-related violence, and indeed the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, who use guns responsibly. That being said, it’s hard not to point a finger at the issue of gun control in the face of recent tragedies. In 1989, the Montreal murderer, Marc Lépine used a Ruger Mini-14, to kill 14 women and injure 14 others. The Ruger Mini 14 is the kind of gun normally used by hunters to kill gophers, groundhogs and rabbits.3 The fact that this semi-automatic rifle is available for purchase today, from Cabela’s Canada for $1399.99, is to me, staggering.4
I do know that the complexities of gun control, the controversy over gun registration, the difference between owning a hunting rifle and a handgun, the lack of correlation between gun availability and violent crime, make the issue anything but black and white. But for goodness sake, the culture that promotes gun ownership, the frequency of the glorification of the use of handguns in popular media, and the ever present horrific events like the killing of two innocent young people in Scarborough last week, speaks to the need for greater gun control.
Notwithstanding the complexity of the various facets of the debate, Canadians need to intensify their efforts towards toughening our gun control laws, accelerating our efforts against illegal importation of guns, toughening our stance to criminals who use guns, and trying to promote an anti-firearm culture in Canada.
If you have any views on this issue, please respond to this blog, or better yet… stop by the Macklem House, my door is always open.
Richard
- http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm
- http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/more-guns-in-canada-this-year-but-fewer-owners-rcmp/
- http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/11/27/f-vp-mallick.html
- http://www.cabelas.ca/index.cfm?pageID=71§ion=1724§ion2=1732&ID=4898
- http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Home.htm
Couldn’t agree more, and would sure like to see more Canadians speak out about this, especially now, after the recent spate of horror.
I remain mystified that after the Montreal Massacre in particular, we don’t have a flat-out ban on guns. Okay, rent them for short periods to hunters if we must, but otherwise, I’d love to see a total melt-down of them all for the purpose of providing enough metal to make fourteen statues of fourteen women, just for starters…
Nina,
Thank you for your views and perspective. I am sure many would support the extent of your suggestions.
Richard
why would you melt down guns some people use guns as a way of life and to provide food for their family and for their own protecftion
I respectfully disagree
Richard
Hello Richard:
This subject is one of the most distressing for me. The abolition of the long gun registry by the Conservative government and plans to destroy all previous information in the registry are obviously guided only by political and ideological agendas. It drove me to write a letter to the editor of the Whig Standard in September 2010 that was published shortly thereafter. Events since have magnified my distress and hope that sensible discussion can include re- constituting the gun registry as one part of the ways to deal with the violence that infects our communities and culture. I enclose a few thoughts from my letter.
In my view a gun is a “weapon”. There is only one reason for a gun, hand or long, that is, to kill and/or injure. For no other reason guns should be registered.
The reasoning that gun control steps on the personal freedom to protect and feed the family or interferes with a gun’s recreational use is utter nonsense. Gun control and registration have no practical effect on these things. These perceptions are of a personal ideological basis only.
As you know, I was raised in a small rural town, worked on farms as a young boy and have owned one or more long rifles since that time. We have owned and worked a farm for close to 40 years. As a young boy we had fun (I must admit) hunting and shooting rats in the local garbage dumps, while a medical student at university I hunted rabbits and fished on the weekends to feed my family. On the farm, the gun was useful to rid us of groundhogs whose holes destroyed our machinery, and coyotes that threatened our sheep. We registered the guns willingly and it never affected our ability to use the guns, and certainly didn’t impact on our personal freedom or integrity.
As you point out, the gun issue is not black and white, but to me, common sense and humanity would place whatever control of these “lethal weapons” is possible well over personal ideological and political concerns.
Nick
Nick,
Thanks for your eloquent comment and providing your personal experiences and perspective to this issue.
Richard
We should encourage our legislators to improve and expand the gun registry, not scrap it.
Leda,
I know that many share your views.
Richard
The gun violence issue is an interesting one. I am not am expert either, but I have a concern. I think we ignore more important issues when we (i.e. me too) get sucked into worrying about gun violence. And of course, at the end of my note I will revert to my own area of interest (truth in advertising I suppose).
There is something statistically disproportionate about our attention to gun violence. In a country with about 9,000 accidental deaths and about 3500 sucides a year, we get hooked in attending more to the roughly 200 gun homicides annually. Indeed, the data suggest that knives account for more or less the same number of homicides as firearms, but none of us gets really excited about knife deaths. Blunt instruments are in the same order of magnitude when it comes to homicides. In the context of about 3500 annual suicides, about 600 are due to firearms, but almost twice as many are due to hanging (WHO data). About 3000 Canadians die in motor vehicle accidents a year. About 350 pedestrians are killed, 211 motorcyclists, and 60 bicyclists. (Mostly Stats Canada data). If we are looking for preventable deaths, gun deaths may be a worthy target, but they are fairly far down the priority list.
Take a look at preventable deaths among Queen’s students. Car crashes and other accidents as well as sucides are the things that kill most students. I can’t remember when last a Queen’s student was shot.
As a society, our solution is often to look for more gun control. Our theoretical level of gun control is actually fairly high. It seems that most gun related homicides are commited with unregistered firearms (Ontario Bar Association data). That suggests that there are laws in place, but enforcement of existing laws may the problem . New laws are unlikely to help the problem if the existing laws cannot be used effectively – unless some way is found to make enforcement more effective.
As a psychologist working mostly with kids, I really wish we could have more attention paid to what I see as contributing factors to preventable deaths in general. Disorders like Fetal Alcohol effects are preventable and substantial contributing factors to crime, accident and suicide because they affect impulse control. The FAS kids grow up, fill the prisons and have more FAS kids. If we can improve the early years of children living in poverty can also reduce crime (mostly in males) and teenage pregnancy. The reduced teen pregnancy rate reduces the number of infants who have a bad start in life. Better services for adults with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities would reduce their death rates, their rate of incarceration and the rate of pregnancy among women who get pregnant without intending to have a child, who are left alone to bear, support and raise the child and who are unable to raise a child alone because of their own limits.
The psychological/psychiatric problems I describe above are problems that my colleagues and I see on a regular basis, that can be addressed (in part) with our existing skill sets and that lack resources. The problems with gun violence tend to be rare and are difficult to deal with using traditional gun control approaches.
It may be that careful attention to the well being of children makes a bigger impact on preventable deaths than the current focus on gun control. That’s why I get fussed when we get sucked into this as an issue.
Thanks for listening.
Kevin,
Thanks for bringing your views to this issue, and thanks for providing the discussion with information that puts this issue into perspective. I am sure, no one would argue that the many important issues you bring up merit augmented attention from society and our legislators. I am not confident, however, that a concomitant focus on gun related homicides, is not warranted.
Richard
The social, political and economic issues of gun control, registration, licensing, illegal firearms and how all these “mesh” with assault crime are quite complex; as are any solutions. There is no ONE solution.
I should add that word “social” here is a really big multifaceted challenge that encompasses drug abuse, welfare, crime prevention, ghettos, ever increasing polarity in our socioeconomic classes, a seemingly ever more ideological (rather than analytical) approach to public policy, etc. etc. And if our global economy does in the next few years, which hélas I so dreadfully fear it must, all of “this” is only going to get WAY worse everywhere (except maybe Japan).
But just because preventing violent crime isn’t at all simple and just because this issue of gun controls is quite obviously a politically and powerfully influential “hot potato” (what with the very recent dissolution of our long gun registry AND our Federal Government’s determination to destroy that data!) I still agree with you wholeheartedly when you say we “need to intensify… efforts towards toughening our gun control laws, accelerating our efforts against illegal importation of guns… and trying to promote an anti-firearm culture in Canada.” By the way, I’m not sure I agree that toughening our stance against criminals who use guns is going to do anything for this problem besides make it worse (as was the case in Texas and California).
I and my family members do not own a firearm and I strongly believe that I have a right to walk free of firearms in the hands of citizens amongst us. And if you agree with this belief, we are in a solidly large majority of Canadians who feel exactly the same way. The gun lobby is strong in Canada, yet only at its infancy compared to our neighbors south of our border. I suggest that the gun lobby is influential in Canada because the solid majority of Canadians who don’t really like guns at all also don’t really care much about them, and know and care even less about crime prevention.
In fact I also did not care at all about firearms really until August, 2010. I also am not an authority on this topic. But everything changed for me that morning when on the way into work, I heard CBC news of an RCMP Canadian Firearms Program Evaluation report (that had been held up “in translation” since the spring) being leaked to the public just before the minority government went to the first vote (which failed) to dismantle the long gun registry. Held up in translation: HA! Translating AND printing most any document on Parliament Hill can happen overnight! What was in that report? I had to know!
And here it is:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/eval-eng.pdf
That report is an easy, somewhat repetitive read with some fascinating facts that helped me better appreciate this is not as simple as gun controls with licenses, databases and police enforcement . For instance, did you know:
1. That ONLY in Quebec (and two small areas of British Columbia) the registry is linked to mental illness where physicians who have patients they feel are violent, depressed, in danger of hurting themselves or others must report these names to the Police and as a result arms were removed from men believed mentally unfit to have them?
The platitude guns don’t kill people is actually an important challenge thrown at gun control talk. And this challenge should make those trying to design the approach to violent crime take pause: If guns don’t kill people, people (usually young men) murder and all of these men I’m sure we must hopefully agree suffer from mental illness. I think our Police should know who is mentally at risk for violence.
2. Every woman and 13 of the 15 police in Canada murdered with a gun: All shot with a rifle.
3. If you want to buy an illegal firearm, hang out behind legal firearm retail stores (not unlike methadone clinics).
4. The computer systems of the various police department s to this very day still don’t talk to each other! Not unlike healthcare eh. And the IT startup costs were astronomical… hum, also sounds very familiar.
5. And there is actually an economic evaluation of the program’s effectiveness, comparing the cost of the program to the lives likely saved (page 62). Suggested almost 4,000 lives saved.
6. The cost of maintaining that registry was down dramatically (<4 million a year in 2008-09 and falling, page 57).
The answer isn’t entirely in that report, but it has a lot of good ideas. The report for instance doesn’t talk at all about social services. And when I woke up last week to the Danzid Street BBQ bloodbath news I thought to myself about what went through my mind in 1995 when the Ontario Government of the day (put in power because they got rid of photo radars) cut social spending by 25% and put 500,000 people (some with kids) onto the street: I thought it would take about 15 years for the gangs to form and hit the streets. Social workers are NOT what the Pickwickian Mayor of Toronto described this week as Hug a Thugs. Social workers make all the difference; it just takes a generation to prove it.
Lois, what an eloquent and information packed perspective on this complex issue. Your admonition that we also need to focus on social issues as a fundamental part of any equation is an important rejoinder. Thanks for bringing important information to this dialogue.
Richard
As a father of four children under 15, I still feel safe keeping my family here in Kingston with the relative lack of open gun shootings, as compared to other metro cities like Toronto and Montreal. Let keep it this way, shall we?
Lawrence
Thanks for adding the focus on the need or safety of our home towns.
Richard
I believe Kevin has the correct ideas about this topic. We all view these shootings as horrific, and want to prevent similar occurrences in future, but the question is “how?”. The initial knee-jerk reaction is always more gun control, but as he points out, the problem is better enforcement of existing laws. Handguns are either restricted or prohibited weapons in Canada, and have been since 1939. They are banned, unless you acquire a special permit from the government after passing tests and a thorough background check by local police, OPP, and the RCMP. None of the recent perpetrators have done that, or used registered handguns. If they have no respect for existing laws, they will have none for newer ones.
When the long-gun registry was first proposed, proponents were repeatedly asked how it would make things safer, and the usual response was “we don’t know, but we have to do SOMETHING”. The Canadian Medical Association initially jumped on that bandwagon, but when challenged to show some evidence of probable benefit, gave it sober second thought and quietly withdrew its support.
We do need to do something, but as Kevin points out, things must be put in perspective, then the real causes and cures sought. Only when we focus on the correct issues and approaches will progress ensue.
Glenn Gibson
Glenn,
Thanks for your comments and it’s hard to argue with your reasoning. But what if we could collectively ascend 30,000 feet and ask ourselves, why do we, in Canada, wn 7,000,0000 guns. Guns kill. That’s what they do.
Richard
A Safer Gun-Free World. Really? Tell that to Aurora, Colorado
Reprinted with permission from AmmoLand Shooting Sports News,
AmmoLand.com, July 23, 2012. This article may be re-printed in other
publications as long as proper credit is given to AmmoLand Shooting Sports
News and the authors, and is not excerpted. The authors wish to thank
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News for permission to reprint & distribute the
following article. Please forward far and wide, to friends & family, and
please credit AmmoLand Shooting Sports News with its publication. Your
help in spreading the truth is greatly appreciated.
Available at:
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/23/a-safer-gun-free-world-really-tell-that-to-aurora-colorado/#
(and also at the web sites noted on the bottom (i.e. â?oAbout the
Authorsâ?). Note: If clicking on the hyperlink above goes to a blank
article, either copy the URL into your browser, or click on the title
immediately below.
A Safer Gun-Free World. Really? Tell that to Aurora, Colorado
By Paul Gallant, Sherry Gallant, Alan Chwick, & Joanne D. Eisen – Posted
on July 23, 2012 by Ammoland
There will always be evil people among us. Witness all the genocides that
occurred in the 20th century, murdering over 250 million innocent victims.
Evil people, no matter where they are found, have violent tendencies: they
tend to turn on others, as the recent mass murder in the Century 16
Theater in Aurora, Colorado, shows. And the firearm-prohibitionists
eagerly await for these rare but heavily publicized atrocities to occur.
And occur they will! They then stand by in the wings, ready to exploit
them to the hilt. For example, the Brady Campaign, Americaâ?Ts largest
lobby to prevent firearm-related violence, pledged â?oaggressive
action.â?
How come few of us never heard of the shooting that occurred, also in
Aurora, earlier this year, â?owhen there was only one victim, thanks to
the quick thinking and action of a responsibly armed individual. Aurora
police spokesman Frank Fania asked rhetorically: â?~Who knows what
wouldâ?Tve happened if the [church member, an off-duty police officer] had
not been there? It certainly could have been a lot worse.â?Tâ?
We need to understand, deep down inside us, that the statistics are on our
side, that the benefits of private firearm ownership far outweigh their
costs to society. We really need to know that our Founding Fathers were
correct when they inscribed the Second Amendment into our Bill of Rights.
We also need to be as certain â?”and to be vocal about itâ?” so that our
friends, families, and communities know that we are all safer in homes,
towns, cities and countries where civilian firearm ownership is both
lawful and commonplace. The reason is simple: evil, violent people pick
soft targets. These can be found in the elderly, in the infirm, in women
and in children. They can also be founding so-called â?ogun freeâ? zones
where teachers, students and lunch room personnel are sitting ducks for
those who wish them harm. Or in places like the movie theater in Aurora,
Colorado which prohibited lawfully armed Colorado citizen patrons, making
the perfect soft target for the Dark Night Shooter.
The fact is that the areas which harbor the most restrictive firearm laws
are the same places where there is a proliferation of firearms
â?”especially those procured through the black market. To date, almost 40
states have enacted â?oshall-issueâ? (non-arbitrarily issued by the
prevailing licensing authorities) concealed-carry laws.
GUN FREE KILLING ZONES
School shootings are a prime example of how restrictive gun laws function
exactly opposite to the claims of their proponents. In 1990, Federal
legislation banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school was signed into law
by then-President George Bush. Although ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court on April 25, 1995, the legislation was re-worked,
resurrected by Congress, then signed back into law by Bill Clinton that
same year.
In an April 1999 working paper entitled â?oMultiple Victim Public
Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Lawsâ?, by Dr.
John R. Lott and colleague Dr. William Landes explored the phenomenon of
mass public shootings in relation to the absence or presence of
restrictive concealed handgun laws, enacted at the state level. Between
1977 and 1995, Lott and Landes found that 15 shootings took place in
schools located in states with restrictive firearm laws, resulting in a
total of 19 deaths and 97 injuries. In contrast, only one shooting took
place in a state where ordinary citizens had easy legal access to
firearms, including concealed handguns. The result: one death, and two
injuries.
The difference was the factor of deterrence, brought about by armed,
law-abiding citizens, and the possibility that would-be perpetrators might
just run into one of these, instead of unarmed, defenseless victims. Drs.
Lott and Landes commented on the ramifications of banning guns in and
around schools: â?othese incidents [e.g. â?ogun-freeâ? public school
zones, movie theaters, postal offices, establishments which have prominent
signs telling prospective customers â?oNo Guns Permitted Here!â?] raise
questions about the unintentional consequences of lawsâ?¦The possibility
exists that attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well
meaning, may have produced perverse effects.â?
The authors of the study pointed out that, 30 years ago, â?onowhere were
guns more common than at schools. Until 1969, virtually every public high
school in New York City had a shooting club. High-school students carried
their guns to school on the subwaysâ?¦.â?
If â?oeasy access to gunsâ? and their â?oproliferation,â? and
high-capacity magazines are the real problem, why no school shootings in
Stockton, CA back then? Why no school shootings in Littleton CO, back
then? And how is it that first-graders didnâ?Tt go around shooting
classmates back then?
In 1972, former West Yorkshire (England) Metropolitan Police
Superintendent Colin Greenwood observed, more than a quarter century
earlier: â?oOne is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use
of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any
sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of
firearm without restriction.â? Greenwoodâ?Ts observation remains right on
the money!
About the authors: Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice
optometry and dentistry, respectively, on Long Island, NY, and have
collaborated on firearm politics for the past 20 years. They have also
collaborated with David B. Kopel since 2000,and are Senior Fellows at the
Independence Institute, where Kopel is Research Director. Most recently,
Gallant and Eisen have also written with Alan J. Chwick. Sherry Gallant
has been instrumental in the editing of virtually all of the authorsâ?T
writings, and is immensely knowledgeable in the area of firearm politics;
she actively co-authored this article.
Almost all of the co-authored writings of Gallant, Eisen, Kopel and Chwick
can be found at http://www.gallanteisen.incnf.org,which contains more detailed
information about their biographies and writing, and contains hyperlinks
to many of their articles. Their recent series focusing on the Arms Trade
Treaty can be found primarily at http://www.gwg.incnf.org.
Respective E-Mail addresses are: PaulGallant2A@verizon.net,
JoanneDEisen@cs.com, AJChwick@iNCNF.org, Sherry.Gallant@gmail.com
——————————
Dear Joe,
Thank you for sharing this article with DeanOnCampus.
Richard
New bill would allow Russians to own and carry firearms.
More guns, less crime?
Members of the Federation Council proposed a new bill that would allow
Russians to own and carry firearms.
Anastasia Novikova, Olga Tropkina – July 23, 2012
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/07/23/more_guns_less_crime_16585.html
The Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russia’s State Duma, has
proposed that the public be allowed to own and use firearms. Alexander
Torshin, deputy speaker of the Federation Council, is planning to submit a
draft bill to the president that would allow service pistols to be used in
self-defense. According to the document, a person would not be jailed for
shooting under such circumstances. The bill is expected to be submitted to
the State Duma early next year. However, passing the law may be easier than
getting the public to accept it. The current federal law on weapons gives
civilians the right to keep hunting rifles and shotguns, traumatic pistols,
gas guns, electroshock weapons, air guns, and some cold blade weapons, but
bans ownership of civilian service pistols.
The authors of the Federation Council report maintain that crime declines as
legal ownership of weapons increases because criminals fear that anyone they
attack could be carrying a pistol. Under current Russian law, however,
victims who are overzealous in their self-defense are often sent to jail
themselves. “Now citizens have the right to keep weapons at home and use
them if a criminal breaks in, but still people are put in prison for
self-defense,” said Maria Butina, one of the authors of the report. “We have
to have legislation to make it legal, that if a burglar breaks in and you
shoot him, the property owner must automatically be recognized as a victim.”
Alexei Rogozin, a member of the Central Council of the Target Practice
Federation and the head of the Self-Defense group, believes that purchases
of handguns should begin to be permitted for certain categories of citizens.
“For example, we could start with master sport shooters, hunters with
advanced mastery of weapons, veterans, and current employees of the special
forces,” said Rogozin. “A campaign should be conducted simultaneously to
promote weapons culture, disseminating skills for safe handling of weapons.”
Experts are confident that handguns will reduce crime rates in Russia. They
cite the example of Moldova, where similar legislation was adopted in 1995,
reducing the number of murders has declined from 8.39 per 100,000 population
in 1995 to 5.9 in 2007 . Experts also see a direct economic benefit from
allowing the legal sale of handguns. The potential market in 2012, according
to their estimates, is 1.5 million people, and it will grow 10 percent each
year. According to the most conservative estimates, the volume of this new
sector of the economy would be 746 billion rubles over 10 years. ,”The
development of markets for civilian weapons also has another economic
component, since it would promote several other branches, such as the
machine-building, chemical, and light industries. It will also promote
shooting sports,” Rogozin said.
First published in in Russian in the Izvestia newspaper.
Related:
A new gun for the Russian army
Should Russia legalize guns?
I really like your web page. Fabulous details regarding dwi dui defense
plymouth mn attorney, thank you for posting.
“There are between 9,000 and 24,000 deaths in Canadian hospitals
annually due to preventable medical error (3)”
http://www.chsrf.ca/migrated/pdf/news_events/CEOforum_S2_Brown.pdf
At the same time you think a list of innocent Canadians who own firearms are suspicious for being criminals and deserve to be monitored, searched, pestered, have their property confiscated without compensation and tracked continuously tracked by police will reduce crime and improve public safety. Convicted criminals get better billing.
I don’t like your kind of medicine.
THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR
The Duty of Self-Defense By Jed Babbin on 7.23.12 @ 6:08AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/23/the-duty-of-self-defense
Ignoring the lessons we should have learned from the Aurora and previous
massacres. The movie theater slaughter in Aurora, Colorado last Friday cost
at least 12 people their lives, and scores of others were injured, some of
whom may yet die. The reactions to it, from liberals and some conservatives,
have been assiduously ignoring the lessons we should have learned from this
incident and those like it in the past.
Liberals react by condemning the NRA, calling for more gun control, and
engaging in an orgy of political hand-wringing. The vacuity of the gun
control debate was illustrated all too well by the exchange between Sens.
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) yesterday on Fox News
Sunday.
Di-Fi called for a reinstatement of the so-called “assault weapons ban” she
authored in 1994. She said that Holmes’s weapon, apparently an AR-15 rifle
with a 100-round magazine, was a weapon of war that shouldn’t be sold in
America. Di-Fi believes that massacres occur because the high-capacity rifle
and pistol magazines (by her definition, those that hold more than ten
cartridges) are in Americans’ hands. Millions are, though probably fewer
than a dozen have been used by the mass murderers.
Johnson, in response, pointed out that Holmes could have killed just as many
people with a bomb. But his conclusion — that there’s nothing society can
do to prevent more massacres in the future — is as nonsensical as Di-Fi’s
idea that the availability of the high-capacity magazines is the cause of
mass murders.
In 1966, Charles Whitman killed 16 people at the University of Texas with a
hunting rifle. In the Columbine High School massacre of 1999, which took 12
lives, the killers used a variety of weapons including a semi-automatic
pistol, a shotgun, and a carbine. The 2007 Virginia Tech shootings took 33
lives, and the shooter didn’t have an “assault rifle” (a term susceptible to
no precise definition, as the now-expired assault weapons ban showed).
Islamist Nidal Hassan killed 13 with a pistol in the Fort Hood 2009
massacre. Six died in the 2011 shootings that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords in
Tucson, the shooter again using a pistol. Now Holmes has allegedly killed a
dozen people using a rifle with a high-capacity magazine while tossing tear
gas grenades into the crowd. He was reportedly wearing some Kevlar body
armor and carrying one or more pistols and a shotgun.
There are several facts these mass murders have in common. The least
important is that they were all committed with firearms.
The two most important facts are that all the shooters were mentally ill and
that in all of the incidents — except the Texas Tower massacre in which
Whitman shot from too high a vantage point to be vulnerable to his victims
- — these mass murders could have been limited or even prevented by people
defending themselves.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, states’ concern for civil liberties has
resulted in a situation in which it has become almost impossible to commit
mentally ill people without their consent. Even in cases such as that of the
Virginia Tech shooter, people who are known to suffer from dangerous mental
conditions are left on the streets. The Army had ample warning about Nidal
Hassan. The fact that it ignored the warning signs because he is a Muslim
should be a national scandal.
The Constitution’s Bill of Rights was crafted to protect the individual
citizen from tyranny. The Founders didn’t trust government and neither
should we. The Second Amendment, we know from the Supreme Court’s D.C. v.
Heller decision, protects individuals’ right to keep and bear arms. The
court emphasized that the right to self-defense can be thwarted by law such
as those it overturned. The Fifth Amendment says that no person can be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
That means, in the case of the mentally ill, that they must be protected
from the kind of politically-generated diagnosis of mental illness prevalent
in Soviet Russia and many other despotisms. But that is not to say that we
shouldn’t make it easier — a lot easier — to involuntarily commit
dangerous people to mental institutions and deny them, as best we can, the
ability to purchase or possess guns.
All of the shooters in these incidents were mentally ill by our standards.
(The Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Hassan, was acting out of his
religious-ideological beliefs. He will have to abandon his beliefs to plead
not guilty by reason of insanity.) Some were not yet determined to be
insane. Universities and state governments should be changing their rules
and laws to make it easier and faster to identify the dangerous mentally ill
and get them off the streets.
For the rest of us, we have to rethink our right of self-defense. It’s a
right that has become a duty.
Picture yourself in the Fort Hood building, in a Virginia Tech classroom,
standing near Gabby Giffords in Tucson or in that movie theater on Friday
night. You’re working or studying or out for a fun time. Suddenly, there’s
someone shooting at you and those near you. You’re helpless unless you’re
armed and well trained to respond with deadly force.
If you’re not a cop — and if you’re following the rules that were in place
at Fort Hood or in that movie theater (thanks to the army in one case and
the theater owner who prohibited guns in the theater in the other) — you’re
unarmed. All you can do is run or hug the floor, shielding your spouse or
date with your body and possibly sacrificing your own life in the process.
You may be lucky enough to be uninjured and close to the shooter when he
pauses to reload. In the Tucson incident, one lady who found herself in that
situation began a wrestling match with the shooter which others joined,
subduing him and ending his shooting spree.
Regardless of where you stand or lie or run, the incident will be over by
the time the police arrive. You, your spouse, and friends will either have
survived or been killed or injured.
I’ve heard a lot of “experts” (including Di-Fi) proclaim that if people in
the Aurora theater had been armed, the massacre would have resulted in more
deaths and injuries. Really? There reportedly were 71 people killed or
injured. I can say with considerable assurance that if one or more properly
trained and armed people were there, they could have shot and either
incapacitated or killed the shooter long before he finished his killing
spree. Even with a small concealable pistol a trained shooter could have
knocked down, disabled, or killed the shooter despite his body armor. Had
someone done so, the casualty list would have been much shorter.
The police won’t be there in time to save you. If the only thing you have in
your hand is a bag of popcorn and a killer begins shooting the crowd you –
and your spouse and children and friends — will probably die. Every
American who is lawfully entitled to carry a weapon has a duty to do so.
Part of that duty is to get the training and to continue to practice with
the weapon so that you can shoot, quickly and accurately, under the worst
stress you can imagine. If you don’t think so, read Dave Grossman’s essay,
“Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs.”
Gun control advocates are pointing the section of the Heller decision that
says that some restrictions on gun ownership can be constitutional. The
liberals now are saying that “sensible” or “moderate” new gun control laws
are the answer, reserving the definition of those terms to themselves. But
no gun control law will stop the killers. Chicago has some of the most
stringent gun control laws in the nation and it’s now the murder capital of
the country.
Each of us can, and must, resolve ourselves to our duty of self-defense. We
cannot rely on the government to defend us every minute of the day. We have
to accept our duty and do our best to perform it.
About the Author: Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books
including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow
him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
54,000 conservatives can’t be wrong.
Click here to like The American Spectator on Facebook.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/23/the-duty-of-self-defense
” I am by no means an authority on the issue of gun control”
This is obvious… What’s needed is not ‘more’ gun control, but more criminal control.
If you don’t believe guns in law abiding hands can keep you safe, then I suggest you place a sign on your front lawn or apartment door that says:
“This Home is Proudly Gun Free” .. Then, consider how safe your going to feel while it’s posted.
Every U.S. state that has CCW laws, has seen violent crime drop dramatically over the last 20 years. The most dangerous places in the U.S. are “Gun Free Zones” like the theater in Aurora Co. Like the schools in P.Q. where the only armed person was the killer! But unfortunately most leftists are incredibly hoplophobic, that in blaming of the inanimate objects, they can’t focus on, or bring themselves to believe, what the evidence shows really works. Even other countries are starting to see the truth..
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/07/23/more_guns_less_crime_16585.html
Guns are a tool, like any other tool. They can be used for good or bad.. It all depends on who’s using them. Not the tool itself. The leftist mantra that says “handguns have only one use, and that’s to kill people” have just insulted every cop in Canada. I’m sure they don’t carry a handgun for the prime reason of killing people. Cops are NOT Jedi Knights, they are just people. ANYONE can get the same training, and be licensed to carry a defensive weapon. Other than a few weeks of training, and a yearly qualification, they are no different than anyone else.. Well, their generally not as skilled with a firearm, or as safety oriented as most trained sport shooters, but generally any intelligent person can be weapons trained to the same level as your average traffic cop. It’s not magic folks! It just works!
Thanks for bringing your perspective to this issue.
Richard
How President Obama changed the gun debate
Posted by Rachel Weinerat 03:39 PM ET, 07/23/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-president-obama-changed-the-gun-debate/2012/07/23/gJQAY98u4W_blog.html
The Fix wrote Friday that gun control policy was unlikely to change in the
wake of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting. A majority of
Americans now oppose more strict restrictions on guns, and tragic – and high
profile – shootings have done little impact on those numbers. What has
impacted the numbers in the gun control debate? Interestingly enough,
President Obama’s election in 2008. In both Washington Post and Pew
polling, opposition to gun control ticked up significantly after President
Obama’s election. Support for gun control has been steadily eroding for
years, but these jumps were larger than the changes that occurred before and
after the election.
From April of 2008 to April of 2009, according to Pew polling, the number of
Americans who thought gun control was more important than the right to own
guns dropped from 58 percent to 49 percent. In that same time frame, the
number of Americans who thought gun rights were more important than gun
control rose from 37 percent to 45 percent. Over Obama’s tenure that trend
has continued, so that 49 percent now favor gun rights while 45 percent
favor control. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in April of 2007 found
that 61 percent of Americans favored stricter gun control laws. By April of
2009, only 51 percent supported such laws. A Gallup poll taken in October of
2008 found that 49 percent of Americans wanted gun laws to either stay the
same or be loosened. A year later, in 2009, 55 percent felt that way.
According to Pew, the biggest shift is among white Americans. From 1993 to
2008, a majority of whites supported gun control over gun rights; now a
majority backs gun rights. (Support for gun rights among blacks has also
increased.) Independents have also flipped, and Republican support for gun
rights has solidified and increased since 2009.
So while Obama has said and done little about gun policy since taking
office, his very presence appears to have shifted the debate in favor of gun
rights – although that was clearly the direction things were headed prior to
his victory. The “why” of that polling reality is less clear. The National
Rifle Association argued in the 2008 election that Obama was “anti-gun.”
That aggressive campaign, combined with Obama’s famous comment that some
hard-pressed Americans “cling to guns or religion,” may have led some who
favored control to believe the current president would go too far and
hardened their support for the right to own guns. Regardless of the
reason(s), it’s clear that no politician – up to and including President
Obama – will spend an ounce of political capital pushing for stricter gun
control measures. The public simply doesn’t want it.
Peyton Craighill contributed to this report.
You might also read one more link. This fellow has ‘nailed it’
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/23/gun-control-polls.html
In the wake of the Colorado shooting, celebrities who tweeted about the need
for tighter gun controls in the U.S. seem to be out of step with the
majority of Americans who are more concerned with protecting their right to
own guns, a trend that may be traced back to President Barack Obama’s
ascension to the presidency in 2009. James Holmes is in police custody for
the shooting rampage in Colorado at a screening of The Dark Knight Rises
that killed at least 12 people and injured 59 others last Friday. Jason
Alexander, who played George Costanza on the sitcom Seinfeld, was among the
celebrities tweeting about the need for stronger gun laws in the U.S.,
particularly for semi-automatic and automatic weapons. With the debate now
raging, he posted a longer version of his argument on TwitLonger.
“These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands,
controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of
private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people
who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to
wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to
help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as
hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and
death on big scales,” he wrote. “We will not prevent every tragedy. We
cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by
allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about
anyone.”
SALMAN RUSHDIE ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Author Salman Rushdie, who has 345,558 followers on Twitter, also jumped
into the fray by tweeting, “The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of
America.” Rushdie, who wrote Midnight’s Children and The Satanic Verses,
remained active on the issue, replying and retweeting a dozen of his
followers’ comments. He also tweeted a reference to his comments after the
1999 Columbine school shootings: “After Columbine I was on Bill Maher’s old
show arguing vs NRA’s Ted Nugent about gun control. Lots of Nugents on my
timeline today.”
Indeed, polls show that support for stricter gun control has steadily
declined in the U.S. over the last two decades. A 1991 Gallup poll found
that 78 per cent of Americans favoured stricter laws on the sale of
firearms, 17 per cent wanted the laws kept the same, and just two per cent
saying they should be less strict. By 2011 the numbers had steadily shifted.
While the number saying they wanted stricter gun control had fallen to 43
per cent, 44 per cent favoured the status quo and 11 per cent wanted less
strict gun control. That Gallup poll also found that 45 per cent of
Americans say they have a gun in their home.
DROP IN SUPPORT FOR GUN CONTROL AFTER OBAMA BECOMES PRESIDENT
Polls done by the Pew Research Centre also found a similar shift in
attitudes over gun control. From 1993 through 2008, majority public opinion
consistently landed in favour of gun control. “We polled in April 2008 and a
significant majority said the priority should be controlling gun ownership
rather than protecting the right to own guns. By April 2009 it was about
50-50,” said Carroll Dougherty, associate director of research at Pew. In a
Pew poll done in April of this year, 49 per cent of Americans said it was
more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45 per
cent said it was more important to control gun ownership. The shift
coincides with President Barack Obama taking office, observes Dougherty.
“There was a reaction to Obama’s presidency. There was a growing concern at
that time that there would be new restrictions on gun ownership coming down
and it had the effect of raising the profile of this issue and mobilizing
support for gun rights.” Pew has done six polls on the issue since April
2009. “What’s interesting is it has not moved in either direction since
then. It’s been very stable,” said Dougherty.
A PARTISAN ISSUE
Moreover, it’s long been a partisan issue but it’s even more partisan than
ever today, he added. “Most of the change has come from Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents. In 2007, half of Republicans supported gun
rights. Now it’s 72 per cent. Change among Democrats is very modest” but in
the same direction, he said. And if past polls are any indication, the
recent massacre in Colorado is not likely to have much impact on public
opinion of gun control. Pew did polls after two high-profile shootings: the
Virginia Tech massacre in April 2007, with 32 killed and 17 wounded, as well
as the rampage in Arizona on January 8, 2011 that killed six people and
injured 19 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. “We have
asked this question about gun rights in the wake of high-profile shootings.
There has not been a major shift in opinion after those events,” said
Dougherty.
MASS SHOOTINGS ‘ISOLATED ACTS?’
In the polls, people were asked, “Do you think this shooting reflects
broader problems in American society, or are things like this just the
isolated acts of troubled individuals?” In 2007, 47 per cent said they were
isolated acts while 46 per cent said they reflected broader problems in
society, such as a breakdown in social values, which was singled out by 37
per cent of respondents. After the Arizona shootings in 2011, 58 per cent
were saying they were isolated acts and 31 per cent said they reflected
broader problems in society, like the social or political climate or the
lack of mental health services. Only 14 per cent in 2007 and 13 per cent in
2011 blamed lax gun laws, saying it was too easy to get guns. While
conservatives tended to view the events as isolated incidents, in 2007
liberals tended to see them as part of broader social problems. “These
attitudes are becoming more fixed over time, though it’s difficult to say
why,” said Dougherty.
GUN CONTROL AND THE SHOOTERS’ MOTIVE
Obama has been visibly moved by the recent tragedy, interrupting re-election
campaign activities to travel to Colorado to meet with the families of the
12 people who died. But he has been noticeably reticent about calling for
stiffer regulation on gun ownership. In fact, White House press secretary
Jay Carney said that Obama remains committed to the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which enshrines the right of Americans to bear arms.
According to Carney, the president “believes we need to take steps that
protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that
we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by
existing law, obtain those weapons.”
Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney called the shootings “an
unspeakable tragedy,” but has made no statement on the country’s gun laws.
The debate about gun control may be masking the real underlying issues in
these high-profile mass shootings, says Scot Wortley, a professor of
criminology and socio-legal studies at the University of Toronto. “I really
cannot explain the American public’s love affair with guns. We’re often not
talking about individuals having handguns for protection. The debate has
gotten down to whether or not people should be able to have high-powered
rifles or weapons that are primarily designed for wartime.”
Even in countries with good gun control, mass shootings take place, he adds,
pointing to the Norway massacre last summer that killed 77 people and
wounded 319 in two separate attacks. “Norway probably has gun control laws
that are as tough, if not tougher, than we have in Canada,” Wortley said.
“Beyond the guns themselves, we have to look at what actually motivates
someone like [James] Holmes to engage in these acts. Guns make it easier for
him to engage in mass homicide than a bat or knife would, but I’m sure his
motivation goes much deeper than issues of gun control.”
Summary
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
“During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.”
—————————————————————————-
“The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.”
see report http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
————————————————————————————
The Justice Department’s interviews also showed so-called “assault weapons” are not a major cause of gun violence. Only about 8 percent of the inmates used one of the models covered in the now-expired assault weapons ban, signed into law by the Clinton administration in 1994.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
“Little information exists about the use of assault weapons in crime. The
information that does exist uses varying definitions of assault weapons that were developed before the Federal assault weapons ban was enacted.”
page 6
The booby-trapped, explosives-filled house of the Batman shooter is a testament to the fact that he would’ve found ways to hurt people regardless of whether or not he had easy access to weapons. I maintain that it is violent people, not violent objects, that are responsible for these terrible, unforgivable crimes.
Law-abiding Canadians (and Americans) should not be subjected to having their rights to firearms infringed upon. Owning a gun is already hard enough as it is. Guns are being demonized by people who have never owned, fired, or held one.
I have held my PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence) for years. Anyone who gets this licence (which is required for purchasing 99% of firearms, the other 1% being airguns which can cause minimal bodily harm) must undergo several hours of training as well as applied and written testing.
My point is that violent people will find a way to do violent things, whether they do it with guns, hammers, knives, or any number of objects.
A proper solution would involve dissolving the market for these illegal, unlicensed guns (and their owners) by enstating harsher sentences for violent criminals and working towards the eradication of gun violence.
As long as there are violent people out there, they will hurt others. Harsher gun laws will affect the 99% of law abiding Canadian gun owners negatively, and won’t affect the violent, illegal gun owners because they’re operating outside laws anyway.
Dear Colin,
Thanks for adding your perspective to this important issue. I would certainly agree that we need harsher sentences for violent criminals. I am aware of the controversy that there may or may not be a correlation between ease of access to guns and their their misuse, but one of the reasons I believe we need tougher gun controls is the need to change our culture with respect to violence and glorification of violent crimes.
Richard
Richard said, “I believe we need tougher gun controls is the need to change our culture with respect to violence and glorification of violent crimes.”
Unfortunately Richard, you like too many, are confusing culture with morality. They are significantly different.
Our cultures, even Canadian cultures and history, heritage and traditions held within the Canadian firearms community, are protected from people like you in section 27 of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This culture does not advocate violence, crime or glorification of violent crimes. They are innocent people being treated like crimianls, or worse than criminals. They have had their civil rights abused by authorities for no reason. Our Canadian gun laws target these people, not criminals. Criminals are not allowed by law to be licensed or to register firearms or place into the system. So only innocent Canadians are subject to the gun law. Why do you advocate the police monitor, search, imprison, pester, and track innocent people and then fire bomb and seize their property (“more gun control”) when societies criminals behave badly? There is “no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.”(1,2)
With Canadian gun laws illogically constructed, criminals misusing firearms will not be affected and our blameless will continue to suffer.
I didn’t even discuss our historic Canadian right to” have arms for their defense.”(3)
Our right to armed self defense which we’ve inherited from England, the exact same origin from which the American right was derived. (4,5)
sources:
1. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
3. section 7, The 1689 Bill of Rights http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/uk-billr.htm
4. District of Columbia v. Heller,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
5. To Keep And Bear Arms, The Origins of an Anglo American Right,
by Joyce Lee Malcolm
It’s good to hear your views on a sensitive topic for some – made abundantly clear in the comments.
I agree with your general views on the issue, but as you have pointed out, the issues at hand are numerous and their influencing factors many. Tighter gun control will likely work only as a temporary measure against violent crimes. It would be harder to gain access to more efficient weapons but it won’t address the social, economical and psychological issues that drive people towards crime. We must not focus our attention, moving forward from recent events, entirely on tighter gun control, but on the factors surrounding the move towards violence.
That said, in a results-based, impatient world, whether we have the resources to spare towards those goals apparently remain debatable.
That said, among the arguments of what could have been done to prevent the mass murder in Colorado are the voices that say that it could not have been easily prevented because of the hidden nature of the psychosis. Perhaps there’s truth to that, and if such is the case, the argument for strengthening regulations on access to the means to kill is fortified, since it becomes, seemingly, the only defense against people of this nature. Not to say that such people would not find other ways to circumvent those measures, though.
Who knows? All I can say is we all have pieces of a puzzle, the puzzle being the best approach to tackle such a complex problem. I’m not sure anyone has any idea how best to put it all together, and I say with confidence that I don’ think those who have the political power to try have the intellectual capacity or the will to do so.
Ralph, thanks for your cogent comments and perspective.
Richard
“Obviously, there is no direct correlation between the availability of guns and the incidence of gun-related violence, and indeed the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, who use guns responsibly.”-Richard
This premise is correct according to the peer reviewed literature on the criminology of gun control. The Auditor General Office reviewed such literature in respect to the gun controls of 1991(C-17) and 1995(C-68), and stated there was no evidence to support the implementation of those increased restrictions, also.
One researcher, Prof. Gary Kleck has noted that firearms are primarily a rural phenomena, whereas crime is primarily an urban one.
How you take a true premise and then argue for it’s opposite conclusion defies logic and scientific method.
The incidents of firearms related crime in the G.T.A. are almost exclusive to two small subgroups of people, with a third world background, who engage in the business dealing in illegal drugs at a street level.
This criminal subculture exists parallel to normal society. It is highly profitable. Nor is it or it’s participants a secret to the Justice System.
They have their own supply system for contraband, so restraints that apply to legal access to firearms does not affect them. They can afford to pay many times what a ordinary citizen would consider reasonable for sporting purposes. Indeed, their illegal drug wholesaler may even require or supply such to protect his “investment.”
The restraint against criminal behaviour under Common-Law are the sanctions of society, the sanctions of the law and when those prove inadequate the right of self-defence(and the means for that).
The primary restraint that of social sanctions is the most effective. It is very inexpensive(no large public expenditures, which is why it is so seldom mentioned by politicians or agents of the state).
One veteran Toronto reporter stated that Toronto has Jamaican gangs and Somali gangs who have divided up territories and fight each other and among themselves(the Eaton Centre shooting).
If their respective ethnic communities shun them, shame them and turn them in to the police on an ongoing basis, they could not function as an economic or social unit.
We do not have a culture of violence, that is largely a phenomena existing in a small subculture that supports it. Hence, applying restrictions to those using firearms for legal purposes, as you note, to millions who are “largely law abiding citizens” is ineffective, unfair to them, and a serious waste of public funds.
If you were to take such a cavalier attitude to medical practices, Queen’s University would be a laughing stock and lose funding for a medical program.
Regarding the horrific crime at the movie threatre in Colorado, we do have a media culture of violence and gun violence. It is sensationalized and exploited to that of an X-box animated fantasy.
The accused in this incident was enrolled in a Phd. neuro-science program. Obviously, he has a high I.Q. and is accomplished in the sciences. If murdering as many people as possible in that threatre was his intent, he surely was capable of doing that.
If know how and access to “weapons of mass destruction” created mass murderers, university Chemistry Departments would be the first to be made illegal.
Had the perpetrator used the same kind of planning and methodology with which he booby-trapped his apartment at the movie theatre few, if any, would have survived. Fire always has been the greatest threat.
While future court proceedings will detail further, this suspect suffers from a psychosis. Apart from films, “evil” geniuses, who plan harm to large groups of people is extremely rare. Thank goodness for that, as ordinary measures, by definition, are most unlikely to prevent a focused, long term plan by such an individual.
as a side note- While the official registration figures for firearms was 7 million, the actual estimates for existing stock of such is, at least double that. 5 million or so have been imported in the last 25 years or so and estimated stock back when every hardware store, Hudson’s Bay and Eaton’s sold firearms was placed at a minimum of 10 million.
I noticed the authorities are quite worried about gunfire being a problem at the annual Carribana festival, whereas no such worry exists for the annual agricultural fair, and it’s the farmers/ranchers who own the largest number of firearms
This inverse ratio applies to the United States as well, even more so as the highest concentration of illegal drug dealers exist in the largest urban ghettos.
Larry,
Thanks for your views.
Richard
As with any debate on the issue of guns and crime, this discussion has brought a variety of views, including extremes on either side. I proudly straddle both sides of the fence in this debate. I don’t own or use guns, but know many that do.
Guns need to be controlled, their use strictly limited to legal pursuits (hunting, sport shooting not “self defence” – as “self defence” with firearms really is a fallacy) and punishment for illegal use, acquisition or distribution of firearms needs to be significant and unforgiving for the danger it poses to society.
However, much as my friend Nick above has nicely illustrated, there are in fact legitimate purposes for gun ownership, most of which are far removed from the life of urbanites like myself and most of the contributors to this discussion, thus making it easy for us city dwellers to dismiss firearms as having no role in legitimate and legal activity. To answer your last question Richard, “why do we have 7 million guns in Canada” the answer is that we have a great deal of our population that owns guns legally, and for legitimate purposes. Hunters who make up the vast majority of gun owners often have a number of different guns as they are used to hunt different types of game. In fact this statistic is from the number of “registered” guns. One would imagine that only law abiding firearms owners would register their firearms. (as an aside I didnt have a huge problem with the gun registry, however I see why gun owners would, it is seen as a “tax”, an infringement on privacy, costly and most importantly it targets legal gun owners, therefore very unlikely to make an impact on gun crime). Notwisthstanding recent events, the fact that we suffer from relatively little gun crime (compared to the sheer number of guns) attests to the fact that the overwhelming majority of guns and gun owners are dedicated to the lawful use of firearms. Gun related homicides in Canada hover around 200-250 a year, nearly identical to numbers of homicides employing a knife. For perspective, compare this to over 2000 deaths related to automobile accidents, and over 11,000 realted to smoking each year
In terms of gun control, we already have very tight control. Each person that wants to acquire a firearm needs to obtain a certificate (therefore there is already a “registry” of potential (legal) gun possessors). For this certificate there are a number of requirements, including a mandatory course, background check and a waiting period. Individuals deemed at risk for gun crime are banned from legal gun ownership. For restricted weapons (eg handguns) the criteria are much more stringent, as Glenn has highlighted above. So in fact we already have very strict gun laws and controls in this country. While the pro gun policies of the US provide a flow of illegal guns into Canada, they don’t “homogenize” approaches to gun control (though groups with similar philosophy to the US gun lobby exist and have some influence in Canada). For the most part, our controls are ours, and realistically we can do nothing to “control” theirs. But I do agree with you strongly that major efforts should be made to stop the illegal cross border traffic of firearms.
No doubt on rare, yet devastating occasions, legally acquired guns are used for illegal and horrific purposes. If we tightened controls even further would we prevent such acts? One might argue that the occasional impulsive act harming self or others,motivated by extreme emotion or intoxication may be prevented by limiting availability of guns, but this would require an extreme, near all out ban, and even then, many such individuals would likely turn to other instruments to carry out their violent acts. For those individuals that commit acts such as we have read about in recent weeks, I think that such controls would have little if any effect. In the case of the eaton centre and Scarborough shootings, these crimes were committed with guns that are certainly already illegal and the individuals that commit such crimes do so knowing full well that their involvement in this activity may actually result in themselves being shot / killed! (recall that the intended targets in these shootings were allegedly rivals in the gang world) In these situations I hardly think a consideration of the legality of possessing a firearm would pose a significant deterrent, greater than that posed by the significant risk of ones own death/ serious injury. In the case of events in Colorado, such a deranged and determined individual would likely turn to other equally lethal means to inflict damage.
Which brings me to the part of your comments where i agree most strongly, and where our real focus should lie. We must look at the root cause of crime in our cities, the factors that lead to a life of crime, participation in gang culture and gang violence. Our culture as a whole needs to examine carefully our relationship with violence as entertainment. We must look at the highly complex socioeconomic factors that undoubtedly are important. We must look carefully at how people with mental illness are treated, remove stigma so such problems can be recognized and treated early, before something terrible happens. Finally I do agree that a more organized, targeted approach to law enforcement is needed, I believe that this would offer more protection to society (and prevent crime) rather than simply handing out tougher sentences, to fill the prisons. I seriously doubt that the average gun criminal weighs the potential sentence when chosing to commit a violent gun crime – they already know that worst case scenario they kill someone and get life, or be killed themselves.
The problem is all these things take time, probably decades, and it is simply easier and more “sound biteable” to make a new law – either “mandatory minimums” (on the right) or “tighter gun controls” (on the left). (the dismissive attitude of our politicians to these more difficult challenges is very well illustrated by Mayor Ford’s recent “hug a thug” comments referring to social programs that may address some of these factors) These things (tougher sentencing, or tighter gun control) make us feel better because we are “doing something” and make us feel better that in some way we have done something to honour the people injured / killed and allow us to feel that maybe the loss was not completely in vain, and / or we have exacted some sort of retribution for the horrific acts. Our political leaders see them as an opportunity to appear as though they are “doing something” to satisfy their voters. These actions likely do little to nothing to address the real problem, nor make us safer. In fact the illusion (or delusion) that such lawmaking approaches make us safer really only serve as a distraction from the real, complex and very difficult issues. Finally, there will always be terrible situations that we cannot control by law, and no matter how many laws we pass regarding the tools used, we can’t prevent the horror that some humans will inflict on each other. Knowing this, I think most of our energies should be focused on preventing the preventable circumstances that lead to such acts, whether committed by gun, knife, bomb etc.
Dear Mike,
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful and challenging comments. You bring up many excellent points, all of which merit reflection and consideration. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue.
Richard
It is not “almost impossible” to commit a “mentally ill” (oxymoron) person w/o their consent. It only takes one person – they can be locked up for 3 days before they get a hearing that no one – I repeat – no one – walks free from – even if they’ve done no crime.
Michael Beyak says:
“Guns need to be controlled, their use strictly limited to legal pursuits (hunting, sport shooting not “self defence” – as “self defence” with firearms really is a fallacy) and punishment for illegal use, acquisition or distribution of firearms needs to be significant and unforgiving for the danger it poses to society.”
We have a Charter right and God given right or natural right to life, our most fundamental civil right. Our right to life grants us our right to preserve our life. In order to fulfill our right to self-preservation, the right must include a means useful for defending that life or self defense has no meaning. Firearms are the most cost effective means available for people to use for self defense, that’s why police use them. In additon, the decision on when one should use or not use his/her right to self defense, has no right or wrong answer. It is a moral decision. If you do not wish to defend yourself or your loved ones from lethal attack by criminals or wild beasts, using the most effective means available, it is for you to decide. Therefore, no person or authority has the right to decide for an individual when they should use or not use their right to protect themselves from harm. People living within a free society do not need to get permission from anyone to exercise their right to self defense. Similarly free people don’t need to get permission from anyone to enjoy their right of speek freely or go to church. Licensing and registration schemes require citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those schemes do not belong in a free society.
We have a Charter right and God given right or natural right to life, our most fundamental civil right. Our right to life grants us our right to preserve our life. In order to fulfill our right to self-preservation, the right must include a means useful for defending that life or self defense has no meaning. Firearms are the most cost effective means available for people to use for self defense, that’s why police use them. In additon, the decision on when one should use or not use his/her right to self defense, has no right or wrong answer. It is a moral decision. If you do not wish to defend yourself or your loved ones from lethal attack by criminals or wild beasts, using the most effective means available, it is for you to decide. Therefore, no person or authority has the right to decide for an individual when they should use or not use their right to protect themselves from harm. People living within a free society do not need to get permission from anyone to exercise their right to self defense. Similarly free people don’t need to get permission from anyone to enjoy their right of speek freely or go to church. Licensing and registration schemes require citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those schemes do not belong in a free society.
This is a topic which is close to my heart… Take care! Where are your contact details though?
You can comment on this blog post anytime,
Richard
a lot of violence is from ethnic minorities, there should be a moratorium on immigrants, those who have no skills, and or, don’t speak english or french should not be allowed to enter canada, in plain english, no job, no admittance. if the unemployment rate, anywhere in canada is above 5 percent, no immigrants that year. unemployment is a major source of crime. any immigrant, up to fourth generation who commits a violent crime, fraud or theft should be immediately deported, along with their entire family, when the concequences of your crime affect your love ones in a negative and permanent way, it would make this policy go a lot further to deter crime than banning guns, if you ban guns, the big group of huge men with big sticks will take whatever they want from you or me.
I must admit, I believe your views are very xenophobic. The reality is we are all immigrants.
Richard
It’s nice to see that the topic of gun-ownership in Canada seems to be leaning back to the non-partisan roots that it always had. The truth is, until 1977, firearms ownership was almost entirely unrestricted. A coworker of mine told me that he walked into a Canadian Tire in 1974 when he was 16 and bought himself a .303 WW2 surplus Lee Enfield for 60 dollars. Sounds like a scary time to the modern guy doesn’t it? The truth was, most Canadians back then settled their disputes with fists and not bullets. Gun crime was still very low by international standards. The firearm was not associated with violence 99% of the time.
As a 23year old who just got his PAL and is about to buy his first gun, allow me to provide a balanced, modern view on firearms ownership in Canada.
What I really hate about this issue in Canada is how the anti-gun Liberals turned into a partisan, left vs. right rural vs. urban debate during the post-Polytechnique days. Canadians of all political stripes have always enjoyed shooting for sport, target practice, hunting, and when the need calls for it, self defence. We have among the most well-trained, law abiding, level-headed gun owners in the world, which is reflected by our extremely low homicide rate by legally owned firearms in the hands of their legal owners. Don’t quote me on it, but I believe the national number is in the SINGLE digits.
The Orwellian nature of the national gun registry, paired with it’s ridiculous costs and total ineffectiveness in urban settings, was proven a costly failure. Not only did it deprive legal firearms owners of the same rights their fellow citizens (freedom from unlawful search and seizure, the presumption of guilt and bullying from the authorities, seizure of legally acquired private property via blacklisting of certain “scary” looking guns) but it also did not prevent a single murder. A sheet of paper would have done nothing to stop the Polytechnique tragedy.
That being said, we have had effective gun control in this country. It is called the FAC licensing system. It was proven to reduce gun crime in this country, and ensures that no criminals can simply walk into a store and buy a gun or ammo. Based on research and data, the licensing was proven effective.
I tend to live by the old saying when it comes to politics, “Never support a law that you wouldnt trust in the hands of your worst enemy.” I would never trust a firearms registry in the hands of a politician that would sacrifice my rights to property and innocence under the law to advance a strict anti-gun agenda. Any reference to firearms registries in history show they almost always lead to mass confiscations, something that, to me, are the antithesis of what a free society is supposed to be, especially when I have not committed a crime.
Firearms serve many purposes:
-self defence in a situation of violent crime/dangerous wildlife
-gas station, bank, convenience store clerks
-family/historical heirlooms
-hunting
-protecting canada’s agriculture/food supply from pests/varmints
-marksmanship
- off-duty police and soldiers honing and refining their shooting proficiency to save lives
and finally (get out your tin foil hats everyone) I honestly believe it’s the last line of defence for free individuals to protect themselves from authoritarianism, and when the State and the power structures that be turn tyrannical and no longer have your rights and best interests in mind (not that they necessarily do now)
An armed populace keeps the following on their toes:
1) dictatorial politicians with malicious intent
2) foreign invaders
3) criminals who will think twice about going into a home possibly armed.
I believe we need to take measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, where the licensing system does a proven job.
Let’s focus on the underlying causes of gang activity (poverty, family issues, education, certain countries in which new Canadians emigrate from, etc.) and stop blaming legal gun owners for the crimes committed by those who illegally import guns from the states on the black market. Gun bans have flat out proven ineffective in Chicago, Australia, the UK.
I’m not a bible thumping right winger, and I personally ABHOR the idea of shooting animals, though I don’t have a problem with those that do.
I do however, love shooting, a skill that I acquired from a brief stint I had in the military.
As a libertarian-leaning individual, I adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. I always abstain from violence, was never in fights as a kid, and do not relish in ever having to use my firearm as a weapon. I would however, not hesitate to grab my rifle out of its safe storage and use it if my life were in immediate danger and I was given a window of time to arm myself for protection.
In the meantime, I will simply enjoy shooting sheets of paper from a distance with my friends (many of whom vote NDP, and also are in their early 20′s and own legal firearms)
I’m trying to catch flies with honey here, as it is easy to spit venom at one another over an issue that many hold dearly in their hearts.
Sincerely, Anthony D, working class urban Canadian and law abiding firearms
PS, if you haven’t tried shooting at a range or at a farm before, try it!!! It’s awesome fun
Dear Anthony, although we disagree on many of the foundational elements of your argument, I appreciate the perspective you bring to this issue and the time you have taken to comment.
Richard
Again, awesome weblog!
Thanks for these kind words.
Richard
I first off have to say, I was intimidated to post here, as I have only ever posted on any forum or discussion a handful of times, and this has been the most reasonable, and respectful conversation on this topic I have ever read. And with actual, non-made up references to boot!
I am your average gun collector; collector not simply an owner of firearms. I’m 32 and an industrial mechanic. I live in a small city, in a very rural area of Saskatchewan. I have no criminal record. I have a 600lb liberty safe to store my collection. I have most categories of firearms; restricted, and non restricted, WW2 pistols and rifles, tacticool versions of common .22′s, impractical large caliber hand guns, hunting rifles, my grandfathers cooey shotgun, bought from the Hudson Bay company by someone before him, and civilian versions of military rifles and sub machine guns. I was not against the long gun registry. Except of course for the paranoia that all gun collectors have, is that someday some politician trying to score points will decree that your prized possessions should be thrown into a furnace to save me from an assured future of gangbanging, murder and eventual suicide.
I hunt, trap shoot, and target shoot. I also participate in the sask govt encouraged elimination of coyotes, beavers, gophers, and wild boar if I get the chance. I understand how to someone raised in Toronto, my possessions would seem to be the catalysts for tradgedy, my leisure time activities macabre and barbaric. But varmint control, animal population control, are neccessary, and shooting sports are part of our culture and social scene out here. As much are quads, sleds and pick up trucks. I suppose this is the divide in understanding of the issue. Many people including my relatives act like entering a major city is akin to diving under water, after a short stay, it becomes painful and they must surface. I’m sure the reverse is true for many metropolitan Canadians. Because of this I can only assume the desire to understand firearm restrictions in Canada is nonexistent. When they hear of guns, it is only after a tragedy.
And because of this lack of understanding, discussions and rhetoric around ownership, and licensing, and the changing of prohibited and restricted weapon categories equals turning inter city youth into African child soldiers, and intentionally allowing public shootings. The seemingly unknown fact to the public is:
Those terrible killing machines from the movies that bill c-68 saved Canada from a certain descent into an urban war zone, are everywhere. Most prohibited firearms with military origins, have extremely similar non-variant alternatives. And yet appear in tragedies very seldom. They are no more dangerous than any other firearm. Often, small single shot rabbit guns and break action rifles ended up in the prohibited category, because of an arbitrary decision to prohibit all firearms of certain calibers. If you think that the only thing stopping mass murder from occurring is the lack of availability of military firearms, please investigate a few of many, many, examples: want a steyr AUG? Try an RFB .308. Or a tavor MTAR. How about a SPAS-12 shotgun? Try a Benelli. Want an UZI? Try a BRS 99. How about coalition for gun control’s nemesis, the AK 47? Try a Vz–58, or the CZ 858, it’s even non restricted. You can drive around with it in your back seat and a magazine loaded in the cup holder, and the police can’t do a thing. There are hundreds of examples. The classification system we have now is so broken, and ineffectual, that we have no need to ponder the results of a society where firearms based on military counter parts are readily available. Many have been for decades. All I would propose, is that the restrictions that we apply to hunting rifles be applied to all firearms, regardless of appearance. This is not a public safety issue. This is a property rights issue. I apologize for this turning into a rant, but after reading everything from the gun rights advocates don’t care about the victims of the ecole polytechnique tragedy, to the notion that if the act were reviewed, there would be rocket launchers hanging in the back windows of pick up trucks, I felt the need to put in the perspective of the only people this legislation would affect. Thanks!
P.S.: My wife and I’s first date was fording through 3 feet of water in my lifted pickup, to access grid roads isolated by flooding caused by beavers, whom we spent the entire afternoon hunting. Ask around southern Ontario and see how many have a similar story.
Dear Nick,
I am very appreciative you have responded and the realities you bring up in your comments speak to the complexity and multiple nuances of this “debate”. I am sure you are quite right, that urban and rural dwellers bring very different perspectives to this issue. Thanks for enriching the conversation.
Richard
Simply put I believe that a fracture in the family unit has brought about more destruction than any firearm has. Children are growing up alone, are often abused, molested, bullied, experiencing poverty, hunger, divorce of their parents and as we know peer pressure. Any or all the above can make a killer. The firearm is but a piece of metal, same as a knife or other instrument used in crime.
I read the comments here and other than a few, most are rabid dog types with tunnel vision towards firearms. Many like myself have owned several firearms for more than four decades, our parents and grandparents owned them and were as responsible as I am. We are innocent people who happen to own a gun or several. We’ve paid for them, paid the taxes on them and much of that money, including licensing fees to use them them goes towards the common good of Canadians. I and my firearms have nothing to do with those who crack emotionally or mentally and commit crime.
I wish to advise you that the number of firearms I hold is none of your concern as long as I have purchased them legally, am using them legally and am storing them securely. I also wish to advise you that what I use them for is my own business as long as I stay with the confines of the law. I do not involve myself in the lives of those around me, those that have not bothered me, those who are responsible citizens of this country and I expect the same courtesy.
Has it been asked whether demographics have an impact on crime in Canada as well as the US? The US is continuously bombarded with crime from Mexico, a corrupt nation. A nation full of multinationals can create a stressed society. The movement of drugs through the US and Canada has led to gang wars as well assault of the innocent by those seeking money to fund their next fix. Is it any wonder some of us with a backbone wish to protect ourselves, our children and our property?
It takes but one stab wound, one pick, one spiked glove, one club to the head, one step onto a highway, one leap from the 7th floor, one overdose to kill. Thousands die from these every year yet it seems the firearm is the holy grail to those who wish to use it to rip the freedoms that I and those like me have away.
Every seven seconds there is an automobile accident in Canada. It staggers me that so many people are given their driver’s license with so little skill or capability. I’ve had to show much more ability obtaining the PAL than many have had to during their drivers test.
Thank you for your views. I take your points about privacy issues and the right for law abiding citizens to abide by the law. What i cannot reconcile is what purpose on God’s earth is there for the purchase of a gun that will shoot 30 or more bullets in a minute, and what purpose is there for bullets that can penetrate bullet proof vests. What concerns me most about the discussion is that for a multifactorial problem with many nuances, the views are so polarized and we can’t find any solution that is middle ground.
Richard
Imo, it matters not the number of rounds but rather the use. There is no common ground. We have those who have grown up with firearms and those that haven’t. Obviously those that do not own firearms regard as something that should be outlawed. They live in urban centres, buy their food from markets, few experience the wilderness or recognize that those who own and use firearms and fish do more to maintain habitat than those that don’t. They look down their noses at rural living, thinking that we depend on them and that their taxes should not support rural Canada. Kind of like shooting themselves in the foot.
The difference between a firearm and a weapon is the use. I’ve carried a weapon, its purpose was for war. A firearm is not a weapon until it is used against another human being…. at least that is my opinion. It is like calling a Pit-bull savage before it actually acts like it. Like all Pit-bulls are vicious…. I’m sorry but I don’t believe they are anymore than I believe a firearm a killer. People are killers and as I’ve stated, parental responsibility has weakened to the point where children are growing up without guidance and counselling, we set ourselves up for failure and being ignorant of those who are responsible citizens, those who have different ideals leads us here.
Once again, thank you for you views. They do diverge from my own, but that is one of the reasons for writing a blog; as respectful differences of opinion can be aired.
Richard
I think its time for me to post something concerning Britain’s gun madness. I emigrated from the UK to Canada in 1994, so here are the facts:
As many people here know, banning guns does not stop the criminals from carrying them. So how has Britain fared since former prime minister Tony Blair’s all out macho “total ban” on handguns in 1997? Before Blair decided to disarm millions of law abiding citizens, the country had three mass shooting that unarmed police officers could not stop. In April 2010, in picturesque Cumbria, a popular tourist destination in northern England, a cab driver by the name of Derrick Bird drove around for 35 miles, casually gunning people down with his 12 gauge shotgun and .22 rifle. He managed to kill 12 innocent people and wound 25 others.
The big problem here was, NOT ONE person could stop Derrick Bird. Not the police, not the public. Why? Because they were unarmed. Nobody had a gun or access to one that could be used to stop this slaughter. After Bird finished his shooting spree, he casually walked into a secluded area and shot himself. In one instance, Bird was in plain sight of two police officers who were scooting people out of the way and shouting at others to “take cover.” They could not stop him. Their batons and cans of pepper spray weren’t quite a match for Bird’s guns.
So, just how many of the tens of thousands of UK citizens who owned handguns went on shooting sprees before they were stripped of their weapons in 1997? Only three. Yes, they were three too many, but enough for Tony Blair’s socialist government to disarm an entire nation of all handguns and rifles over .22 calibre. Ten years later in 2006, there were an estimated FOUR MILLION illegal guns circulating in the UK. Criminals between the ages of 15-24 can get access to Mac-10 sub-machine guns, Beretta pistols and replica weapons converted to fire live ammo. Also on the rise is the number of victims shot: Again, going back seven years, 440 people were seriously wounded by firearms in 2003/4, up five per cent from 2002. In the first six months of 2009, the number of shootings in London had almost doubled from 123 to 236 compared with the same period in 2008, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across London alone. In2011, there was over 3,000 firearms related crimes in England and Wales. The gun ban didn’t do anything to deter the criminals from packing illegal guns.
Since 1996, gun crime has increased overall in the UK by 92%. Now we have huge areas of London, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool controlled by gangs armed with machine guns, fighting it out over turf and the drugs trade. Teenagers packing illegal handguns battle each other in “respect” shootings. In the meantime, coppers walk around unarmed while the rest of the country is left to cower in homes behind locked doors, burglar alarms and barred windows.
Although Canada is not free from armed criminals, at least the situation here is a lot saner. All police officers here are armed and Canada has considerably less violent crime than the UK. There are over 3.8 million gun owners here who didn’t kill anyone yesterday. Yet if you dare to defend yourself, your home or your family will al egally owned gun, you’ll get into more hot water than the criminals who tried to take your life. The Iain Thomson case is a reality check in this regard.
For those “ban all guns” groupies who continue to believe that disarming law abiding citizens will somehow keep us all safe, they should listen to the number of 911 recording on YouTube by terrified women who were calling for help when stalkers, rapists and burglars were in the act of breaking into their homes. The police were too far away to get to the scene in time. All the women in question are all alive today because they had access to a gun in the house and were able to put a bullet in their attackers. In Canada, they would have been charged. Dead criminals are a much better solution, or rather criminals who are afraid to break into someone house, knowing that the owner coulder be armed and willing to shoot an intuder.
When a citizenry is unarmed and therefore stripped of its ability to protect itself from violent criminals, then that citizenry is no longer free. Britons tofday are certainly not free, as the UK is now the most heavily watched country in the world with close circuit cctv cameras in every high street. Apparently its to keep us safe. I say its has a lot more to do with population control.
In closing, here is a newspaper report from the UK (with photos) of an armoured car guard who was attacked and badly wounded by three hooded men armed with machetes. In the UK, armoured car personnel are not allowed to possess ANY KIND of defensive weapon, not even a baton or pepper spray. They get a crash helmet and a stab vest. That’s it.
See here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-517540/Caught-camera-Dramatic-moment-security-guard-fought-machete-wielding-gang.html
Thanks for your views. I, for one, am certainly not advocating that our forces should be unarmed…just that I do not see the point in selling to the general public semi-automatic weapons that can fire 100 bullets per minute.
Richard
reznickr says:
January 6, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Thanks for your views. I, for one, am certainly not advocating that our forces should be unarmed…just that I do not see the point in selling to the general public semi-automatic weapons that can fire 100 bullets per minute.
Richard
With all due respect, your statement is based on a false premise. The general public does not have access to semi-automatic weapons that can fire 100 bullets per minute. These are restricted firearms and a restricted Possession and Acquisition License is required before the firearms TRANSFER is approved by the Chief Firearms Officer (the OPP in Ontario). The general public does not have a PAL (and fewer PAL holders have the Restricted category), so the general public will not have had the required police background checks, training and certification. By the way, the 1.8 million PAL holders in Canada undergo a background check every single day of the year.
Why would I want to have such a firearm? For action shooting competitions. Incidentally, firing 100 bullets per minute is unrealistic, since rifle magazine capacity in Canada is limited to 5 rounds, which would require 20 magazine changes to fire 100 rounds; cannot be done in 1 minute.
Our society is one of rights, and not one of needs. Owning such a rifle is presently, with the necessary qualifications, a right, and I will want to exercise that right, if I choose to do so, unless that right is taken away by Parliament. In contrast, a society of needs will deny you anything that is not specifically permitted first by regulation, and if you cannot justify your need according to current political dogma. A simple illustration would be why you actually “need” to own a SUV, when you burn a lot more gas than a regular car, and are a deadly hazard to smaller cars on the road in case of a collision. The slippery slope starts here. Once society starts imposing on citizens a requirement to justify anything they do based on need, you wind up with an oppressive state.
Cheers,
Marc
Dear Marc, Thank you for expressing your views and providing additional information to this discussion.
Richard
As a United Statesen living in North America, I would like to see my nation grow up and realize that the new enemy is we ourselves. Those citizens left fallen between the cracks in our social fabric, and no longer the British Regulars, members of the native Indian Tribes or wild bears in the woods unless escaped from the zoo or in the case of felons, prison.
Maintaining State Malitia controlled by State or Provincial Governors, as in Canada would be preferred.
Charles,
Thanks for your views.
Richard