In the comments, Bryceman asks for help;
I have a question for my fellow conservatives. 99% of the time, I can handle myself well in a political discussion/debate on any of the hot-button topics of the day. And I can usually send the more left-leaning of my political adversaries to the defensive. Not in a bad way. Most of the people I discuss politics with are very cool and reasonable people who will give and take political points on grey-area issues. These aren't knock-down, drag-out arguments with extremists...just friendly debate.But, there is one approach to one topic that I never have a very good come-back for. It's about gun control.
Now, I don't actually own any firearms. While I have not kept the tradition alive, I come from a long line of hunters. I used to be certified to handle and carry guns (except for restricted weapons). But, my old certification was declared null and void (thank-you Mr. Rock) because I hadn't had it since before 1979.
So, I have to take it all over again. And I will - since I am set to inherit some guns that have been in my family - some of them going back as far as the 1870's.
Anyway, when something like the Dawson College incident happens, I always react by saying, "Hunters and farmers from BC to Newfoundland will be made to pay for this."
And my "less-right" political sparring partners respond by posing questions like, "Yeah. But, in today's world, what do we need guns for anyway? And what's the limit on what kind of guns a person should be allowed to own? Should they be allowed to own a tank? How about a SAM launcher?"
I'm never able to answer these kinds of questions to my own satisfaction. I never get that "slam-dunk" feeling when arguing back. Sure, I can go on about the creeping nature of the state unecessarily taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in a hollow response to a problem (like Dawson) that has nothing to do with them. But, I can't go much further without my own argument sounding weak - even to me. Second Ammendment arguments don't have any relevance in Canada. And, as I am a prime example, the argument that there is a need to hunt for you and your family's food is all but gone in the modern world.
Has anyone got a suggestion on how to answer this one better?
Yes, I do. Concede the point.
"I agree. There is no need in today's world for a citizen to own a gun."
Having come to agreement that "need" is the threshold for a citizen's right to own a firearm, the discussion is ready to move forward.
Announce to your friend that you are ready to accompany them to their home. You will begin with an inspection of the kitchen, and from there, will work your way through their house, tagging each possession you believe they do not need in "today's world".
Don't forget the garage.
There's no logical reason to limit the inspection to possessions that pose a threat as weapons. With the consequences that await society from global warming, and the alarming increase in energy consumption, those homes with a television in every room, two cars in the garage, and appliances of pure convenience - food processors, cappuccino makers - cappuccino makers! - must come under review.
Tagged items will then be removed to a truck and taken to a location for safe disposal.
Explain that only possessions for which you determine there is current need will be allowed to remain - the "greater good" is not open to negotiation. You might point out that this position is perfectly consistant with your friend's determination that there is no "need" to own a firearm. The only thing that has changed is the person doing the determining.
(In addition to those tagged for immediate seizure, items with the potential to become unecessary in the "today's world" of tomorrow will be recorded in a registry. In that way, future unecessaries may be confiscated more efficiently. Some accomodation may be made for heirlooms and items with sentimental importance - antique automobiles, plasma tv's, recreational vehicles - so long as they are rendered permanently inoperable. Plus, they'll need a permit.)
When you are interrupted - and you will be interrupted - ask your friend this;
If "need" is to be a criteria for the private ownership of property, then what's so damned special about guns? And if the definition of a citizen's "need" is at the perogative of the state, then what's so damned special about yours?
Absolutely beautiful, Kate. As a gun owner who has to take a lot of shit whenever guns are used in a crime,thank you very, very much.
As a gun owner since 1981, I was involved in competition shooting for a number of years. At its simplest target shooting is a lot like golf... you are attempting to hit that hole-in-one and you are scored on how close you come to it. It is definitely a skill sport when you consider all the variables in play. On a 300 meter rifle range you are calculating the wind and the bullet drop and using a scope to conquer distance. True devotees handload their own bullets, using different shapes and weights of bullets and powders to tweak that particular gun. You have to beat the urge to flinch when the gun goes off... it's tough.
I have never hunted, but I am guessing that it is a way to test yourself... like a lot of other sport.
Here's something to consider if you are simply looking to save lives... ban alcohol and tobacco. They kill tens of thousands of Canadians every year and we certainly don't "need" them.
That glass of wine and cigar the Millerites like to have after their dinner....gone.
A citizen needs to own a gun when the government wants to know about it.
The best answer to the whole mess is to arm EVERYONE. Remember an armed society is a polite society.
-Adolf Hitler
and that's just a start, there's so much more.....
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
I have been reading about bears breaking into peoples' homes. This suggests that perhaps one reason to own a gun in some Canadian suburbs is to protect oneself from wildlife.
This may not be the case in downtown Toronto (unless you'd like to describe Jumpin' Jack as a wild animal) but certainly in more places than you'd think - such as on Vancouver Island where my uncle has run into bears enjoying a snack on his honey farm.
Bryceman/dmorris...please try that argument. You'll be laughed out of town. Coffee maker equivalency just doesn't cut it.
Now let's get a few things straight. Before you can even buy a rifle (which is what the gun registry is NOT about about) you have to have a security check done. Then you have to take a course on how to use the darn thing properly before you can even own it. This takes several weeks. So, you don’t just go and buy a gun and bring it home.After you bough the gun it is then registered. Then it's registered again at the long-gun registry. Any valued added at this point?
At this point the government knows who you are, if you’re sane enough to own a rifle and that you learnt how to use it safely. What the Librano$$ did was have you re-register your rifle so their friends can slurp at the trough. No new information was collected that could help police. There is enough information collected before the registry to do what the registry was supposed to do. It just needs a link to the police computers for access across the country.
Who determined that this loser was sane is what we should be asking. A 25 year old dressed in Goth is a good sign he’s a few bricks short of a load. Maybe firing a few shrivelled servants would make them more aware of their duties. You fire from the top, not the bottom.
Handguns have been severely restricted since the 1930’s. Crossbows, knives, screwdrivers, box cutters and other lethal weapons are not even registered. Why the fuss over rifles? They kill bambies, that’s why. That is all urbanites know about rifles. And the MSM keeps fuelling the misinformation that the Librano$$ started with.
Could Dawson College have been prevented? Perhaps. If resources were available to surf the web and visit sites where losers meet. Seeing someone with a gun should have triggered a visit to the killer’s house.
Seems the only sane ones live in the country where guns are a common sight.
Rod -- Agreed.
Never trust a government that doesn't trust it's own citizens with guns.
Thomas Jefferson
My favorite comparison was to those dreaded "attack dogs". Who on earth needs a huge dog in the city. They've proven themselves time and time again to maul little Sally and Sammy, or even the federal postal workers.
Let's not mention those huge SUVs, DVD burners or home comoputers.
What an absolutely beautiful response to the question posed, Kate. I only wish that I could have drafted as salient response as what you have come up with...
Pierre Trudeau himself argued against a gun registry. WHAT ?? Yes, AGAINST IT.
From memory; Winnipeg, Red River Community College, sometime in the seventies. In response to a question from a student, favoring registering guns.
Pierre Trudeau, " Aahhaa, well. Would that have helped ? I mean really, would it have made any difference if the gun had been registered ? "
It is so telling. Thirty some years ago even the most left leaning, pro govmint control politician at the time could see the folly of a gun registry. He also made some remark about the perpetrator being the real problem.
What is in the Basket Weaver's Latte anyways ???? Rewards for failure under that rim ??
Don't ban guns...just ban bullets.
"The best answer to the whole mess is to arm EVERYONE. Remember an armed society is a polite society." - As in Switzerland.
Further to that; all citizens, especially children need to be familiar with guns, taught to respect them (and life), and put them safely away. Constantly telling kids no, don't touch, is not the answer.
Rod; the Liberals plan to ban hand guns renewed my interest in acquiring an F.A.C.
I wonder if Wendy Cukier ever talks on a cell phone while she's driving? Sips a Tim's?
Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.
Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws.
3w.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt (The Elder), from a parliamentary speech.
And, conversely,
"It is in these useless and superfluous things that I am rich and happy."
-- attributed to Scopas, ancient Greek sculptor and architect
Superficially plausible, Kate's argument against gun control collapses the moment one remembers that 'You can't have it because we think you don't need it' has never been the government's rationale for the gun registry.
That some slow-witted schmo couldn't respond to an argument based on whether modern people (which modern people? for what purpose?) 'need' guns is beside the point, frankly.
The state is compelled to consider elements which impinge on public safety. Those things that compromise that imperative should be measured against their utility. You should recognize that utilizing Socratic extrapolation, which extends a principle (gun control) to untenable extremes can be reversed every bit as effectively, to wit; no gun or other deleterious entity controls. Ultimately a public consensus will determine tolerable restrictions on guns and considering the urbanization of our population and lack of constitutional protections, I don't like your chances.
Good ideas Kate, but unfortunately Canadian gun owners haven't been able to get their act together to confront the government as a unified group. The NRA should serve as a model of what a unified group of gun owners can do and the NRA has almost 100% success in the critical senate races that it publicizes before elections. The NRA is also the only group I belong to as now the US remains the only hope of maintaining the right to keep and bear arms.
Most gun owners I know are simply ignoring the law. They haven't bothered registering their rifles and, as many of them owned them pre-1979, there is no record of them in the system. Ammunition is a bit more of a problem but many of these people also reload their own. Trying to put further restrictions on firearms may be the catalyst for western separation.
As far as items which aren't needed, no-one who lives in a city needs an automobile. When I lived in Vancouver I walked everywhere and the primary danger was from asshole drivers who seemed genetically incapable of seeing red lights and pedestrians. If there were no automobiles on city roads, then cycling would be possible again and the enforced exercise would dramatically reduce the incidence of obesity and diabetes. If one factors these medical problems into the social costs of automobile use, then the automobile is the most deadly device currently used in Canada. People who insisted on owning vehicles would be allowed to park them in a secure lot well outside the city limits.
It is curious why mulitple fatalities from the criminal use of automobiles get very little publicity in the MSM. Despite decades of being registered, automobiles continue to be used in a very large fraction of illegal activities. Banning automobiles would dramatically reduce the incidence of driveby shootings. Making automobile owners responsible for the misuse of their vehicles would be a first step; now gun owners are usually subject to criminal penalties should their firearms be stolen, even if they are in a locked safe in a locked house. This law should be extended to automobile owners and, should the owner of an automobile fail to render it incapable of being driven when it is parked, they should be given automatic jail terms for unsafe storage. After all, if it saved just one life . . .
"Trying to put further restrictions on firearms may be the catalyst for western separation."
You think incremental firearms restrictions will provoke the citizens of Vancouver, Burnaby, Surey, Victoria or for that mattery urban Calgary to separate?
Get real.
Next thing we know some government is going to deem that we don't need pickup trucks & SUVS. After all, many folks own 'em, drive 'em, but rarely, if ever, haul loads of stuff or take 'em off-road or even see enough snow to make them useful for winter.
But many folks have these vehicles based on potential need, not necessarily actual. Some of us are smart enough to know that occasionally the need does arise for such vehicles, and when it does, we're ready.
Same argument can be made for guns: for example, if a big bear invades your property and tries to attack, or if your home is invaded by murderous, rapacious scumbags...
Tell me again: why do "liberals" call themselves "liberals" if they're so damned illiberal? A true liberal would leave stuff alone unless a concrete case could be made for interference or imposition. But "liberals" are all for interference and imposition.
Comedian Chris Rock had a suggestion: guns should be readily available, but bullets should cost $5,000 each. This policy would greatly limit the collateral damage of those desperate, scattershot, one-eye closed, inflamed attempts. And if someone was hit in a drive-by, bystanders would say "man, he must have done something to really deserve it."
Trying to convince socialists, statists and incipient totalitarians of anything using libertarian arguments is, at best, extremely difficult.
People who are trained to look to government for the solution to all problems see little downside to state control of most anything. In cases involving perceived threats to public safety, like guns, arguments favouring individual liberty are futile.
Don't forget - on your way home: Buckle up! Get those helmets on!
And no buying a fast MRI, even to save your life - it's illegal!
Well, you don't "need" a car, either... and cars kill ( and maim, sometimes to a point where the victims life can never, ever be the same ) far more people than guns ever do. Swimming pools and buckets of water drown more of "the children" than guns kill, each year.
Gun Facts version 4.1-- is a free e-book that debunks common myths --Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.
How come divorced people are prohibited from owning firearms in Canada?
There is no need to "concede the point", at all. There are all kinds of reasons, and needs, to own a firearm. From a justification standpoint, its one of the easiest tools to defend. What makes the justification argument difficult, is the same reason arguments about religion are so difficult- you are having to argue against irrationality.
Uh, Bob, divorced people aren't prohibited from owning firearms in Canada. What the Liberals did, was make it so your ex-spouse (or anybody) could have you declared a public risk, regardless of the circumstances, or personal consequences, without any requirement for proof, or accountibility for false accusations. See how that plays in a divorce proceeding and custody fight?
Roger: thank you for succinctly and unequivocally illustating the entire point of Kate's post. Attaboy!
I don't like guns. Never have. But there's no reason any law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to possess fire-arms for hunting or whatever reason they deem necessary, as long as they are locked up, and stored in a safe fashion.
Weapons of choice included guns and machete. ...-
Globe | Three dead on bloody Sunday in Toronto
Toronto experienced one of its bloodiest Sundays in years yesterday, when three homicides were committed in the space of just a few hours.
"This was probably the most stretched we've been since the Yonge Street murder last year," he said, referring to the wild shooting rampage among crowds of shoppers on Boxing Day, 2005.
That gun battle between rival gangs capped a year with a record 52 gun-related homicides -- the brazen nature of the shooting shocked the city and garnered international attention."
Skip, have you read the FAC form recently? The application asks if you have been divorced. What is the relevance of the question and to what end do they use the answers? If they ask the question (do they ask this on driver's licenses?), then they are denying access based on the answer to the question. Let's just say I have no dog in that particular fight but it appears to be unreasonable public policy.
We're not allowed to own a SAM launcher?
Oh-oh.
as difficult as it is for you readers to master the cappucino machine and therefore making it possibly as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands, it's sole purpose is to make coffee. a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn't matter what.
people like me can make these "difficult" distinctions" and don't give a damn about your "rights" to own guns. simple, just like your logic.
ps. bryceman, if you need a steak, go to the butcher and support an organic farmer. put your guns away.
as for excessive energy consumption, i'd take away your big trucks and suv's too. and yes, before some astute person says it, i'm a "lefty". i believe government should interfere in our lives, to save us from ourselves, or at least conervatives.
Bob, I have done a LOT more than just read it. I have a whole pack of dogs in this fight.
The question is one of many aspects of C68 that lead to its unconstitutionality. The question predicates the assumption that if you are divorced you are the unstable component in a marriage breakdown. This is directly the intervention of Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathgen in the crafting of this bill in the 90s. The application, and the bill, is directly intended to target men in domestic relationships. Its based on a warp of statistical data. Since domestic violence sociologically is statistically a case of men hurting women, a reverse onus is placed on men (since they are the major purchasers of firearms) to have to defend that they are not a danger to ex-spouses. The analogy in Toronto would be to ask black youths shopping for Honda civics to indicate if they had any intention to use it for drive-by shootings.
It is an unreasonable public policy. If you answer yes (there is a 2 year timeline), they may contact your ex and specifically enquire whether they think you are a risk to owning firearms. It has been a frequent occurrence that exes have said yes, simply out of spite. Men have had their firearms confiscated based on statements by ex-spouses they haven't seen in a year and a half. Men have lost custody of their kids, because the ex claimed risk. Standard advice now to men with decent or valuable firearms collections is to transfer them to someone else if they are contemplating or in a difficult divorce, particularly if there is a custody fight over kids and the woman stands to lose custody.
The entire Cukier/Rathgen post Ecole Polytechnique gambit was intended to transfer the guilt of EPT on to the shoulders of all men, a total feminist de-powering male trip. Rock was a naive willing sop way out of his league.
Statistical data in Canada has never, and still doesn't, support any part of the gun control arguments, or bill C68.
Consquences of global warming?
I've been away from SDA for awhile. Last time I talked about global warming over here I had about a dozen people tell me I was out to lunch. Has there been some kind of shift in thinking over the past six months amongst you guys since then?
Not asking to gloat, just genuinely curious.
Jeff, congratulations. you too can stand with Roger illustrating Kate's point. Smug, ignorant, smarmy, juvenile, Liberal, thinking.
The first question you ask your wrong (not "right") friend when they bring up Dawson College or Columbine etc is "would this person, intent on killing people, have registered this weapon?" Then ask "if the person planned on killing himself afterwards if it would matter if the gun was registered?" The answer to both is no. I have no problem with the RCMP knowing if citizens have guns if they have to confront them. A billion dollar registry is not needed when a simple record of people who have a Firearm Acquisition Certificate (FAC) would suffice.
Skip: I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Yikes.
They also ask if you've ever declared bankruptcy. Again, I have no dog in that fight, but risk is fundamental to capitalism, free markets, etc. I'm thinking of the use case of a couple who lose their jobs in the dot com bubble, go bankrupt, move to the country, and each want a firearm as befitting a rural lifestyle. Or a businessperson who goes belly up; they shouldn't be prevented from going hunting.
thanks for noticing skip.
A thought from where I sit in London, UK.
Around the time Kimveer Gill, 25, killed Anastasia De Sousa on Thursday, William Jaggs, 22, killed Lucy Braham, 25, in Harrow, North London.
Jaggs was a former student at Harrow School; Lucy was the daughter of one of the masters (teachers). It looks like a story of unrequited love on his part. It appears he tried to take his own life afterwards.
What's my point? Two young women murdered; two psychopathic young men.
Gill used a "gun." Jaggs used a knife on both Lucy and himself.
While we're all working ourselves up in a lather over gun control, another senseless murder takes place with no firearms involved at all.
No matter how clever we get, we'll never be able to prevent the occasional sad, mixed-up individual from resorting to violence.
It needs to be clearly understood that bill C68 was never about public safety. It was about a left wing agenda, two agendas, in fact. For some in the process, it was about depowering men, a way to control them in their relationships with women. For some it was, and is, part of larger scheme to disarm citizens. The registration component of the system is entirely about confiscation. There is no practical need for the government, or police, to know who has what. The government already has importation and manufacturing data on the kinds of firearms in Canada. There has been legislation for years defining the use and distribution of "politically incorrect" types of firearms. In a swat scenario, the registry plays no role in determining the actions of police. To believe and advance otherwise is to simply display one's ignorance of both firearms and policing. There is merit in licencing based on competency, but all the fluff about semi-autos (more properly, "self-loaders"), and "military styled" is just that, fluff, and clearly signals the proponent is truly ignorant about firearms, or has an agenda, or more commonly, both.
Canadian citizens cannot legally own true military firearms. Except for those few grandfathered, there are no legally privately held assault firearms in Canada and none commercially available (as much as Wendy wants to call the AR-15 an assault rifle, its not. Limited to a 5 round magazine, its not one bit different than any equivalent cartridge hunting rifle, except that it doesn't have a wooden stock. Assault rifles, by definition, and strategic use as such, MUST be capable of automatic, or burst fire. The AR-15 is not, and cannot be readily converted. there isn't even a rational basis for being restricted, other that it looks "bad"). None of the available semi-autos can be converted to automatic fire. This is already controlled in the distribution of firearms The Beretta Storm carried by Gill is a popular target carbine that is really just a large pistol. No more (or less) dangerous than any standard duck gun, and significantly less powerful then even your most basic deer rifle.
There is a much darker side to the interest in confiscation. Firearms in civilian hands have always been the second part, along with the ballot box, in keeping governments honest. Nations both historically and presently, who have severely restricted civilian ownership of firearms, have drifted quietly and sometimes not quietly to totalitarianism.
There are millions of firearms in Canada. The number of times any of them are used to hurt someone is miniscule compared to all of the other ways people get hurt. THAT, unequivocally, shows that Canadians are safe owners of guns, and C68 has nothing to do with it. Were they as safe with the knives in their kitchen drawers, and the cars on their roads.
Kate, I love your site and I agree with 99% of your opinions, but here I must dissent. Roger (posted at 12:22am) is right -- comparing guns to coffee makers is a brutal analogy and I'm not sure why all the gun lovers are singing your praises for such a weak argument.
To be concise: the purpose and function of guns is to destroy, whereas the purpose of coffee makers is to help me get out of bed in the morning and be productive. I concede that the VAST majority of those who possess guns will never use them inappropriately. However, when have you EVER heard of a crazed psycho deciding on a coffee pot as his weapon of choice? Apples and oranges my dear.
In sum: need is NOT (or at least, it shouldn't be) the threshold for private ownership of property. Rather, POTENTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY is / should be the threshold.... Of course, according to that logic, we should ban cars too, so.... lol (I guess utility has to factor in at some point too.)
seatbelt use is the law but no matter what we do we will never be able to prevent automobile fatalities.
smoke detectors prevent some house fires but not all, houses still burn. get rid of the smoke detectors.
of course, life jackets don't prevent all drownings which makes them useless also.
antigun legislation is clearly a waste of time given all the examples i've used.
pretty simplistic logic, but when in saskatoon....
Nothing to be proud of, Jeff...
Which begs the obvious question, Jeffie, why have the laws?
P.S. I just ploughed through the rest of the comments and realized that Jeff basically made the same point. Except he's obviously an arrogant jerk and I don't wish to portray myself in that light. So I hasten to add this post to distance myself from that association.
Kate, you want to whack him or shall I? The same thing could be said about carving and paring knives, even the odd butter knife, blenders, shredders, table saws. In fact, crazed psychos regularly kill people with coffee pots, toasters, baseball bats, potted plants, statuary, medicines, and leftists with bad legislation. I know specifically of at least two cases where, as a result of the inequities created by bill C68, otherwise good people have committed suicide. Based on the lack of supportable evidence to the contrary there is actually more direct evidence that Liberal gun control has killed more people than it has saved.
jeffie? coming from a guy called "skip". you better stick to sir when addressing me skippie.
Jeffie, you going to have earn "sir", and you are not even close.