“What do we need guns for anyway?”

226 Replies to ““What do we need guns for anyway?””

1. My son-in-law is a RCMP officer. He maintains that the registry is a bad joke – useless. First, it is out of date – no one seems to be sending in a change of address when they move. Second, when a police officer goes to someone’s home for whatever reason he or she ALWAYS assumes that there are weapons of some sort in that house. Third, the cop on the beat will tell you that the billions spent on the registry would have done a world more good putting more cops and other resources to work in Canada.
   Make no mistake about it. The registry was the first step in eventually confiscating guns in this country. Just re-read some of the comments submitted by gun control advocates. “The sole purpose of a gun is to destroy or kill something”. What follows is “with the registry, we know where the guns are (mostly) – now lets go get them”. There is no changing minds on this issue so those of us who believe that in a free country we should be allowed to own guns, we must keep up the good fight. When a nut job like Gill decides that he going to go postal – well, registry or not – he is going to do it. There is no gun control in the world that will stop a crazy like him.

2. “the purpose and function of guns is to destroy”,
   “a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn’t matter what.”
   Such are the warm and fuzzy logic of the anti-gun crowd. It is bad enough that I have to get my wife’s permission and signature in order to get a PAL. A gun/rifle is nothing more than a tool, plain and simple. Whether it is used for hunting food, killing clay pigeons or living paper targets, should be none of anyone’s concern provided it is done in a safe and responsible manner. If I was talking about needle exchanges and safe injection sites then by golly, the same anti-gun zealots would be giving speaches on how it is not for us to judge others. Hipocracy, thy middle name is lieberal.

3. Kate, I love the way you put my thoughts into words.

4. “the purpose and function of guns is to destroy”,
   “a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn’t matter what.”

   So do “teeth”. Let’s ban them too. Brad, we’re being a bit hard on you, I think, because you seemed to indicate at the end of your post you realized the fallacy of your argument, and the direction to which it must naturally lead.

5. Thanks Cheri….
   The image of Wendy Cukier drinking a Tim’s….made me spit mine out.
   😀

6. Thanks for all of the input. I never intended to have my question become a thread headliner…it was just a thought I was having during a lazy weekend after a debate with an old buddy…a debate in which I felt I performed badly.
   I can’t say that there are any better arguments than the ones offered here. And Kate’s explanation is perhaps the most airtight “principled” argument.
   The only thing I see open to attack is what Brad in Waterloo and Roger have pointed out. If you try to make the firearm – coffee maker comparison, you’ll get a roll of the eyes and a “come on…guns are not the same as coffee makers.”
   But, I guess that the point is the principle. It’s about symbolism versus substance. And you’ll never get a left-leaner to see that anyway.
   Thanks again for the suggestions…I feel that I’m better “armed” for the next time I have to argue this issue.

7. Late breaking news on the CBC…
   2 rival gangs in Toronto, The Food Processors (TFP) and The Cappacino Makers (TCM) battled it out this morning.
   The alleged turf war was sparked over a reported misunderstanding between the 2 rival groups. TCM became incensed when TFP started to sell Ice Caps using mixes rather than the traditional machine made Cappacino.
   Several members on both sides are now in hospital receiving treatment for coffee scalds and food processor beater wounds.
   More to come…..

8. So now they say I don’t need my guns?
   OK! I’ll break out the ol’club again on the trapline. Always thought clubbin was much more up close and personal anyways…

9. The utopian mantra chants: “in today’s world there is no need for a citizen to own a gun”
   Of course aside from the self-evident fallacies in such a utopian world view, the first reaction to such a smug and philistine reasoning is to simply state that in a civil society where basic civil rights are respected, there is no need for a responsible citizen to justify ANY personal choice….this is the basic premise of the Gay marriage lobby. It extends to the responsible ownership of firearms as well.
   We do not live in a needs-based society, our laws are not needs-justified and our culture does not dole out rights on a needs based rationale. If you want to live in a needs-based society, I’ll buy you a one-way ticket to Russia, Cuba, Korea or the depraved backwater communist dictatorship of your choice.
   Now, to drag our inquisitive little utopian lefty a little closer to reality, let’s just look at that “world” that his smug insulation keeps him from seeing:
   The history of western culture and North American culture have been one large tribute to the firearm. It has been instrumental in putting food on our table, opening the wilderness, protecting us from predators, criminals and foreign dictators….it continues to be the number one tool of law enforcement in protecting the civil society from dangerous miscreants.
   By extension we include ourselves in international armed forces which stand in opposition to global criminal sociopaths. Again the gun is the primary tool for controlling the bad guys.
   The nature of guns defined:
   Mao once mused that power emanated from the barrel of a gun. It is the only true statement he made. All tyrants and sociopaths realize that he who owns the guns rules those without them. On a more biblical level, he who beats his sword into ploughshares will plow for those who don’t.
   The premise of the commonlaw society (a social order springing from the British liberal jurists, American and French overthrow of monarchy) was that given that power emanates from the barrel of a gun, and given that tyrants have a trait of monopolizing the ownership of said guns to ensure their dictatorship, it makes sense that if this “power” were distributed to the citizenry no tyrant or criminal would be immune for civil armed response. Tell your little leftoid anti-gun sophist that the right to bear arms by the common citizen was not unique to the American republic, it is also an enumerated right in Blackstone’s commentaries on the rights of the British subject and it was also written into the French republic’s first constitution. Today, in the modern super states these cultures spawned, it is still recognized that the citizen has a right to access arms and that he has a justifiable right to use them for survival and self defense.
   This begs a question to be forked back at our smug leftist inquisitor….” if your world and society is so secure why do police still need guns to protect us?” By natural extension we have to ask if police can be everywhere at once and if not is their ability to offer armed intervention to stop an armed and dangerous criminal all that good that a citizen would willingly surrender his RIGHT to self defense and the option of personal armed intervention against armed criminal attack?
   Guns in this age are relegated largely to sport and recreational activities which, by and large, have been proven to be the safest of many sports by actuarial statistics…sport shooters can get 5 million dollars of liability insurance for about 10 bucks a year….that is a pretty low risk activity the underwriters are insuring against.
   However, guns do have one primary purpose which is still linked to our civil and human rights and that is self defense. It is irrelevant that some smug leftist sophistry has abandoned the moral and civil duty to self defense of self, family and fellow citizens…it is also irrelevant that those who buy this craven sophistry are hoplophobic ( irrational fear of weapons) do not “like” guns and do not want you to have one or allow you to defend yourself with one( why is it always the smug moral left who do nothing as some citizen is raped or murdered in front of them),.. the fact remains that defensive violence/force is morally and legally justified and self defense is a human right. Armed defense from armed criminals is also justified and legal. It is a part of our civil society…the part that keeps it civil. Guns save lives.
   A gun in the hands of a good man is an asset and gun in the hands of a bad man is a danger…problem is that leftist gun controls are disarming the good guys while the bad guys still arm themselves.
   The whole utopian rationale for removing guns from society is premised on a false notion that the gun itself corrupts the owner into going “bad”. This is, of course, another provably false social construct of the loony left.
   A gun is an inanimate tool. To a sociopath it represents power. To a regular well-adjusted responsible person it is a useful tool for sport, survival and as a last resort to protect himself from sociopaths. Thus the rationale that a guns in the hands of good citizens secures society, guns in the hands of sociopaths ( criminals, terrorists, tyrants) destabilizes civil society. Prof. John Lott has provided ample peer reviewed evidence that more guns in the hands of responsible citizens reduces violent confrontational crime…sometimes as much as 100%.
   We have to maintain a balance to ensure there are more armed good people ( police, security personnel and trustworthy citizens) than the barbaric criminal sub culture. THAT is the prime directive of gun control….not to provide an Orwellian statist bureaucratic tyranny focused at disarming rational responsible citizens.

10. A person who’s intent is to kill could use a coffee pot as well.

11. JJM: Your example from the UK (young man, in the school, with a knife) is exactly the point. The Dawson tragedy has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the firearm debate. Gun supporters jumped on the bandwagon because they knew the inevitable redirection from the grabbers was coming again, and it did. Charest, in a bizarre display of political whoring, fussed and fidgeted about going to Ottawa to demand the registry be kept even as he admitted it made no difference in this case. Canada needs to be served by more honest and forthright politicians such as these. We deserve far better.
    Three tourists in a Toronto hotel offed themselves in a bloody murder/suicide (apparently). Tourists, in our cities, with Canadian knives. Where is the Liberal angst over the banning of knives? Where are the editorials from liberal media calling for the registration of all such murderous tools? Why aren’t citizens being required to register all of their utensils? After all, engraving serial numbers would be easy.
    As many, and sometimes more, Canadians die each year from knives than guns. After all, the only purpose for a knive is to cut and tear, destroy and dismember. NO ONE NEEDS a drawer full of knives. A paring knife is the most any one should be allowed to have. I see no need for large knives, and I would never want one in my house. Think of the children. You can buy your meat precut at the store. The butcher (Yes! He’s called a BUTCHER!) will cut and dismember your meat for you. Wooden popsicle sticks, or plastic recyclable knives are all anyone needs to spread butter, scoop jam. Plastic forks are the most you need to get your food to your mouth. A truly safe society would encourage the return to the use of hands to eat with. With modern disinfectants and running water, its now safe to eat with your hands…. How long are you going to allow Canadian civilians to own such dangerous, uncontrolled items? They’re not even locked up. Only the police and military should be allowed to use metal knives and forks…
    You liberals get it, yet?

12. Skip,
    Apparently my comments have caused me to be associated with a certain POV which I hadn’t intended. I don’t comment here all that often so I wouldn’t expect you to know this, but I’m no liberal and I honestly care little about gun control. My honest view is that the registry is a fine idea which was already working under the existing system, the Libs version is stupid simply because it’s a colossal waste of money to duplicate a system already in place.
    At any rate, the only point I was trying to make is that people with violent intentions choose guns as weapons infinitely more often than small kitchen appliances. Surely we can agree on that. And so while I have no trouble with the concept of private gun ownership, I would hope we might also agree that there are risks involved not associated with coffee makers. Thus my ‘apples and oranges’ conclusion.
    Oh, and to whoever made the low crack about needle exchange and hypocrisy, I’m not sure how you connect the dots between the two issues but I’m no hypocrite.
    (I won’t get a into needle exchange debate because I don’t want to hijack this thread topic.)

13. Uh Skip,
    We get it and have gotten it all along. It’s just that it’s great sport to bait our fishin’ poles with nonsense that gets righties going.
    Watching a conservative twist in the wind over nothing is jolly good fun.
    Carry on……

14. The only time guns are problematic is when they are used in criminal acts. Of course, criminals dont NEED guns either. Witness the murder this weekend where the victim was run over with a vehicle then hacked with a machete.
    During my working life i saw many things done in order to improve health, safety and security. Many of these things were as useless as the gun registry, but were done either because someone wanted to be seen as DOING SOMETHING, or it was a pet project.
    Arguements against useless actions, laws, etc, are difficult since you are argueing against the equivalent of motherhood and apple pie.
    The reality is that useless actions are in fact detrimental to the solving of problems.
    For instance, the gun registry became fact, so many people relaxed, said well done, problem solved.
    Is it conceivable that if a billion dollars had been spent on more thorough examination of gun owners, monitoring of certain websites, better border security, we might avoid some of the issues that face us now?

15. Last week my closest neighbor (1/4 mile away)was attacked by a cougar, yes a cougar in his yard, about 100 feet from his house. It came growling and snarling out of the bush. As it leaped at him he got a good kick in just under its jaw which set it back long enough for him to run like hell for the house. As he got the door shut it slammed against the door in its efforts to get him. Fortunately, it didn’t get its claws into him, but it did tear his shirt. By the time he was able to get his gun out of the cabinet where it was lawfully stored, and get the ammo from a safe and lawful separate location, the cougar was long out of sight.
    Now, this animal having once attacked a human is likely to try it again somewhere, sometime. The whole neighborhood is looking over their shoulder even as they do chores around their yard. Is it even safe to walk out in the fields or even take a pleasure walk ?
    The wildlife people have said it’s ok to shoot it if we get the chance and I certainly will. Now I ask you, who needs a gun???????

16. I had a colleague (centre-left academic) ask the question last week over lunch: “who needs guns anyway?” I asked him if he had ever killed a steer with a sledgehammer. Utter blank incomprehension…I explained that shooting the cow was easier and less traumatic (on both of us). He wondered why I wanted to kill a cow. I sighed – explained that I liked to eat. He then told me that I should leave this work to the butcher. I told him that I did not want to, and he asked : “why?” I said that I am a citizen of a free and democratic country and may choose how I live. He laughed the most startled and dismissive laugh I’ve heard in years. The conversation then veered right (sic – LEFT!) to state control.
    There you have it. The majority of people would rather have mamma wipe their bums and runny noses the rest of their lives. They are too scared to live, and petrified of dying. As a consequence, they are incapable of thinking clearly on the subject of overly restrictive state control of firearms (or, indeed, of anything). They do not have a clear understanding of the statistical nature of risk, the media trades blood for money (“if it bleeds, it leads”), too many politicians pander to idiots thus creating a climate in which justice is perverted…

17. ‘To be concise: the purpose and function of guns is to destroy’.
    There are many purposes to which guns can be employed, only one of which is to kill.
    Which of course is what the lefties exclusively focus on. The argument that follow’s or is implied is the simple and childish moral greyness or neutral position that all killing is bad. Which completely eliminates, wipes out all context and circumstances.
    According to this ‘moral’ code; if you kill an intruder who is in the process of murdering your wife you are both equally quilty. The policemen who were shooting at Kimveer are as quilty and evil as he was. And as some NDP members believe, our soldiers are quilty of terrorism.
    This moral neutrality is actually a poorly disquised moral inversion that condemns and disarms those who act properly and responsibly in their own interest and in the interest of society.
    Who does this position ultimately help? The criminals, the thieves, thugs, murderers and lunatics. There is nothing neutral about the position, it is not a morally superior one, it is an immoral position that sacrifices the innocent and the good for being good.
    We as human beings have a right to live, and therefore a right and a need to defend ourselves. In the modern world that means guns.
    There are many purposes to the firearms I own, to put down sick animals, to hunt, to shoot targets, to collect,etc. But the primary purpose is to -protect- myself, my family and my property.
    Which is of far greater importance than a coffeemaker.

18. Kate,
    Your coffee-maker comparison is ridiculous, as has been made clear. Some people “need” an RPG launcher but they can’t have one. Where do we draw the line? Well, somewhere between coffee-makers and RPG launchers.
    The question for gun-owners is: what’s your bottom line?
    Harper in all likelihood will introduce stringent gun controls – as Howard in Australia did. If Harper doesn’t, then PM Rae or PM Dion will.

19. Brad, fair comment, and i sott of suspected that in your answer. I would be careful about the statement “…people with violent intentions choose guns as weapons infinitely more often than small kitchen appliances.” Superficially, that would seem logical, but its not necessarily true. Firearms are not the weapon used in many homicides, not even in the preponderance of cases, depending on what statistics are compared. There are many, many homicides of circumstance in which death is caused by blunt force trauma. While firearms are weapon of choice, no more so than knives. Certainly, beating someone with a coffee pot is not as common, but the point of the discussion is that isn’t about “coffee pots”.
    David Brown: I know you do (well, some of you anyway), but what is being missed is that inappropriate legislation of a draconian nature such as c68 has a real, not imagined, cost, that sometimes, as in C68, can be measured in human lives. There is a danger to vacuous feel good legislation. When it is woven into such agressive statutes as the criminal code, there is often “unintended consequences” that negate any good the legislation may do. The weight of the state can be an onerous burden. It is important that when it is used, the purpose needs to be as clear, and honourable as possible. None of this exists in C68.

20. “The majority of people would rather have mamma wipe their bums and runny noses the rest of their lives. ” hopefully not with the same cloth!
    Sorry Henry, couldn’t help myself but you do make a valid point. How does your colleague get his beef? Somebody has to kill the hamburger-on-the-hoof. I am personally against the practice of cooking and eating tofu unless they are of the free range type.

21. The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
    If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it’s usefulness is unmatched.
    “When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite”
    ttp://www.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

22. The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
    If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it’s usefulness is unmatched.
    “When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite”
    ww.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

23. The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
    If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it’s usefulness is unmatched.
    “When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite”
    triplew.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

24. The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
    If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it’s usefulness is unmatched.
    “When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite”
    fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

25. The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
    If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it’s usefulness is unmatched.
    “When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite”
    fishontario.com

26. Skip,
    I’m not a big fan of C68 and the cost is lunacy.
    However, any clear thinking person would agree that there simply can not be gun anarchy.
    I only hope that Harper will come up with something that is more sensible with little cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

27. You’ll appreciate the ironic choice of headline for this Halifax newspaper editorial:
    GUN SUPPORTERS USE FLAWED LOGIC [http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=8226&sc=7]
    “…They also trotted out the faulty logic that since the federal gun registry had failed to stop Kimveer Gill from buying a semi-automatic rifle, it should be scrapped….Canada has laws against murder, rape and theft. These crimes continue to occur despite these laws. Does that mean the laws have failed they should be repealed?”
    (does this augur a federal registry for penises)

28. Why do you think the Americans made gun ownership such a sacred right? Ask yourself, when Iran invades North America, who will go down fighting and who will bend over and say “please be gentle”?
    I believe the Americans hold sacred the right to have an armed citizenry because then, in essence, they always have a standing millitia in case the worst happens. We, on the other hand, who have become so accustomed to living only by the whim of others can not understand this and therefore say there is no ‘need’ for gun ownership.

29. I am sure many farmers can find a need for a gun for varmit control and the gun is certainly a better option than poison for the farmer. There is no question that our current gun control is a waste of money.
    The question that one might want to ask is how do you reduce the number of violent deaths caused by the likes of Kim Ver Gill (1 person), Robert Picton (23+ people), Clifford Olsen (11+ people, bludgeoned and strangled) James Jones (900+ people mass poisoning), Nikolay Soltys (7 people stabbed to death with a knife), Priscilla Joyce Ford (6 people with a car), Julio Gonzalez (87 fire by gasoline), Jack Gilbert Graham (44 people dynamite), Yang Mingxin (9 people with an axe)
    Before you ask for a ban on guns think about these nutbars will use instead and how do we stop them?

30. Skip: I think we basically agree with each other.
    Moneybags4me: Good gracious where to begin…. You began by quoting my simple statement of fact (guns are built to destroy) and ran so far with it you ended up defending your right to live. As if I were questioning that. I hate moral relativity and you’ll find none of it in my ideology. Of course you have a right to life (sheesh). And of course the police were right to shoot and kill Kimveer. But since you brought that up, wouldn’t it have been nice if Kimveer wouldn’t have been able to get his hands on a gun in the first place? Would he have been able to cause as much damage armed only with a knife? Rhetoric, perhaps, but I tend to think if you were to substitute any other weapon.. say, a coffee pot… the consequences would have been noticeably less tragic.

31. “Bloody Sunday” in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    Commentary:
    “Calgary cop is a straight shooter”
    “Horne’s words struck a raw nerve with Calgarians, fed up with Canada’s revolving door system of justice.
    Violent offenders are released to serve out their sentences in the community. Some of the accused in the shooting death of Jane Creba here on Yonge St. last December are out on bail.
    Suspected terrorists are out on bail. Criminals who harm children are back on the streets in a laughably short time.
    We understand the system is under pressure from overcrowding and lengthy trial delays. But this practice of charging and even convicting people of the most serious crimes and then just dumping them back onto the street has to stop. ” …-
    http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/09/17/1856500.html

32. Yes, there are NEEDS for a gun. On the farm if a pack of coyotes is terrorizing my livestock – I have need of a gun. In addition, if one of my livestock has been injured beyond salvation, I need a gun in order to humanely deal with the situation. Perhaps these people who think that guns are unneccessary in every situation should have to come out and witness animals who are suffering horrible wounds and they should have to sit there and watch the animal until it dies “naturally”. Nothing could turn a normal person’s stomach more than watching this kind of suffering and we don’t have to – we can put an end to their suffering with 1 bullet. It’s the moral thing to do and the safest way to deal with the situation. People who would take that away should have to suffer the consequences of watching horrible, gut-wrenching deaths of animals.
    The only reason a government would have a gun registry is to confiscate law-abiding people’s guns and the only reason that they would do that is to remove any chance of the peasantry rising up against them when they start imposing their own kind of “rule of law”. That is why gun owners aren’t complying – they know where this road leads and a lot of people are so busy being afraid of a hunk of metal when there are so many other things out there that can kill you. Perhaps we get what we deserve.

33. Dawson: the guns WERE registered, that did NOT prevent the crime.
    99% of owners could register all their guns. Most of the shootings are caused by the 1% not registering They never will. Can the gov find all the Angel’s drugs ? or guns ?
    A Gothic registry would do more good.
    A knife in the hands of a punk is a problem. An AK-47, and the punk becomes a Terrorist.
    Assault rifles and pistols have been restricted in Canada for a long time. Before Alan Rock even. But is not enforced.
    Twenty years ago, the suggestion that the Socialists wanted to disarm the population may have been scoffed at. It is now easy to see that socialists will stop at nothing. In order to CAUSE disorder and hence the requirement for govmint to swoop in and “save” us, they will, in this day and age,;
    Side with the terrorists in disrupting society.
    Foster gov dependancy on the population, like day care.
    Disarm the population to prevent future uprisings.
    Back wako ideas like Kyoto, if it means political control.
    Support, or at least turn a blind eye to Dictators. Saddam.
    Turn the Universities into bastions of socialist thought.
    Turn the public school system into bastions of socialistic thought.
    Canada has gone a long way down the road of decay in it’s law and order. It is an old Socialist trick. Allow disorder to fester and when the population is desperated enough it will accept political solutions.
    WHAT OTHER REASON IS THERE FOR CONTROLING LAW BIDING CITIZENS WHILE ALLOWING THE CRIMINALS TO CAUSE HAVOC ?? MANY, MANY COUNTRIES HAVE VERY, VERY LOW CRIME RATES. WHY NOT CANADA ??
    EVEN THE LIBERALS ALWAYS SPOUT THAT WE ARE A COUNTRY OF PEACE KEEPERS.

34. I have never touched a gun in my entire life. I have no desire to ever own or use one. However, were I to live in a less-civilized area of the world, the option of self-protection with a weapon could be extremely important.
    Tragedies such as Darfur would not be occuring if the populace at large were armed: it’s considerably more difficult to ethnically cleanse a minority group that can shoot back. If security of the person is a human right, then why does the world do so little to ensure that every person has the capability to defend themselves?

35. “Security of the person is a human right…”
    That’s because often the belief in that only extends to rhetoric.

36. Consider for a moment the possible perspectives of certain Lieberal supporters, specifically the supporters (friends) of Alfonso Gagliano, on the issue of legal gun ownership by Canadians. Wouldn’t THEY be happy knowing who has the guns and, ultimately, that Canadians are eventually disarmed?
    Maybe that explains the Lieberals desire for the gun registry…follow the money!

37. Bryceman:
    There are a couple of basic realities any gun-control debate must have as a foundation. Some have been explained here, but there are a couple of things people should consider:
    1. In any gun control debate both sides make the basic assumption that gun-control is actually achievable in the real world. False assumption. The world is pretty much awash in guns of all kinds. Anyone can buy or steal one if they wish. It’s also an extremely simple machine, any half-assed mechanic or machinist can make one. (I have. Fired it once to prove it worked, then chopped it back into scrap.) Therefore debating the merits of “making guns go away” is moot; it’s impossible anyway. All you would achieve is disarming some (not all) law abiding citizens, destroying civil liberties, and creating an expensive and ponderous bureaucracy that creates more problems than it solves. Voila, C68.
    2. If you look at the history of human society, and specifically the single greatest dangers we all face, you will discover that statistically the greatest threat to human beings, especially in this last century, have been their own governments. Arguments entailing the “But it can’t happen here!” view are whistling past the graveyard when looked at through the lens of history. I find a good analogy is my fire insurance; My home has never burnt down, no one I know has ever had their home burn down, therefore should it not be economically illogical to constantly be buying fire insurance? No. Why? because, unlikely as it may be, the cost of losing our home is just too great. Similarly, the possibilty of a law abiding person ever having to resort to deadly force to protect their lives may be small in todays Canada, but if it happens the cost of not having that option is too high.
    Guns, more than anything, are a symbol of the citizens option to use lethal force if she must. If this option only exists with the State and criminals, we will soon no longer live in a free society. Historical examples abound, study a bit of history!
    The culture of “safety”, fed by the “culture of fear” is the greatest weapon used by statists to destroy the sovereignty of the citizen. The lack of gun control does not lead to blood in the streets, state control eventually leads to blood in the streets, wholesale.
    It is easy to get “down in the weeds” debating the details, but one must have a basic philosophical foundation, that is explainable to most, before beginning the debate.
    That was part of mine… 😉

38. David Brown: Where is your evidence for “gun anarchy” in Canada, or in most western civilizations, in fact? There never has been such a scenario in most western countries (unless you consider WWI & II to be the case.) Certainly not in Canadian or British history, not even in the US.
    Gun grabbers are tilting at windmills looking for non-existent rationales to promote the personal agendas of specific individuals. Naive and largely ignorant people, fed sophomoric and highly manipulative arguments climb on simply because of their naivete.
    There never has been a decent democratic rationale for significant gun control. Issues of safe handling and appropriate storage have ALWAYS been on the table, and always supported by responsible owners.
    Canada has never had an overarching need for the level of gun control that exists today, let alone what some propose. States that have enacted it, have paid a price in increased criminal use of guns. There is demonstable criminal deterrence in an intelligent armed citizenry. Citizens of free states always need to be wary of governments that promote the disarming of its citizens, especially in light of the FACT that there is no empirical or statistical basis for such controls. To whom does your life belong? You? Or does it belong to the state?

39. Oh boy.
    The fixation on “coffeemakers as weapons” here by some only reveals (somewhat sadly) that the underlying point was completely missed.
    The question asked pertained to the premise that the state had a stake in the citizen’s “need to own” property, as an argument in favour of gun control, and one presumes, confiscation.
    “who needs to own a gun in today’s world?”
    I’ll direct you to reread this portion of my post – “the discussion is ready to move forward”.
    That was your clue that the issue of firearms was being set aside. The examples that followed were to illustrate the following:
    Once government has determined that the baseline for authorized ownership of property is determined by a citizen’s “need”, the policy is easily extended to apply to any property. And if you accept the state has the right to decide if I “need” to own a gun, then you must also accept that the state has the right to decide what any citizen “needs” to own, and it need not be confined to guns, or other weaponry.
    In the case of gun control, harm reduction is the rationale.
    Likewise, harm reduction by way of reduced energy use has very real potential as government policy, in this day and age of state propoganda on climate change. Thus, I chose the cappucino maker as an example of an unnecessary luxury under the premise of harm reduction through lowered energy consumption.
    Not harm reduction through elimination of potential weaponry from the home.
    Man oh man….

40. I was hoping someone would have “filled-in” the one essential to a socialistic take over in a country. ANY country. The catalyst converter.
    The MEDIA !! Control the medium and you have it all. At a Billion $$ per year it is in progress.

41. -Brad in Waterloo-
    “Would he have been able to cause as much damage armed only with a knife? Rhetoric, perhaps, but I tend to think if you were to substitute any other weapon.. say, a coffee pot… the consequences would have been noticeably less tragic.”
    That is incredibly niave utopian wishful thinking, even if we could magically ‘poof’ away all guns you would be no safer from the Kimveers of the world.
    One does not have to search very far or wide to find all sorts of recipe’s on how to end human life which are more effective than guns. Take a run through the terrorists handbook, easily found online, and you find how true that is.
    A BBQ propane tank and a bag of coal for instance could do far more damage.
    Your ‘final’ solution with regards to guns would solve nothing.

42. I am astounded at how many people on this thread are missing Kate’s point!! She is not claiming equivalancy between guns and coffe makers. She is pointing out that the the debate over gun ownership cannot be carried out on the basis of “who really needs one anyway”. The point is that as a society we do not allow, restrict, or ban ownership of items on the basis of need.
    I am not required to justify my gun ownership on the basis of “need” any more than the childless 2 lawyer couple (whose old age medical care will be covered by my kids by the way) is required to justify their monster house, SUV’s, and consequent massive energy consumption on the basis of need. The lifestyle choice of the aforementioned couple is selfish, and short sighted, but as a free society we all have to put up with the fact that some folks will make this choice. The whole “need” thing is from Leninism, and it requires the “from each according to he ability” part as well. However, we have not built our society around this premise (Thank God!!).
    Granted, guns are not coffee makers. This is why I have to have a licence to buy one, own one, sell one, or buy ammo. This is a good rule, as it MIGHT (and I emphasize, ONLY might) prevent some psycho from getting one. Registering the gun itself however will do no good.
    In terms of the case at hand, I think that one could make as good a case for strict restriction and regulation of the internet, even to the point of restricting computer ownership to those who need it. Honestly, how many of us really need one? Back in the ’70’s and ’80’s most people did not have them, and the internet was (for the most part) unheard of, and society moved along just fine. But where after all did Kimveer Gill get and play the violent games he was so fond of? Where did he manage to connect with a bunch of like minded “vampire freaks”. Please understand, I don’t think a computer registry would help this problem either. But I notice the fact that it is the left leaning people who always protest most vehemently against any form of internet censorship. I can’t imagine how they would react to federal restrictions and regulatiopn of computer ownership.

43. Kate, you beat me to it.

44. Well said, Kate.
    I own my Grandfather’s guns,my Father’s guns as well as those that I’ve purchased legally myself over the years.
    They are in my care and trust the same as the china set willed to my wife from her Grandmother.
    If we elect to use one hundred year old china plates like frisbies its obvious we will lose them.
    Same with the firearms. Leave them out,misuse them or act like an idiot around them and the result would be the same.
    You lose them.
    And a billion dollars wasted doesnt change that fact.
    That has been the case for the past 100 years and will still be the case 100 years from now.
    Registry or not.

45. Yes, Kate, I understand.
    If one wishes to use gun control laws as an example leading to our actual lack of property rights in this country, how about this:
    I was recently told that “of course” we have property rights in Canada. I asked where was that in the constitution? I was told that these rights existed in convention, it didn’t matter that it wasn’t in the constitution, the rationale could be traced right back to the Magna Carta. So, being the irreverent and recalcitrant red-neck that I am, I declared that I had a right to keep and bear arms, even if it’s not in our constitution, because the rationale could be traced right back through the BNA act to the Magna Carta.
    Funny how property rights, the basic bedrock of a free society, isn’t even on the radar, and is the biggest lie most Canadians don’t even question.
    Maybe time for you to write another “Best of SDA” on this one!
    Cheers!

46. The whole gun registry is smoke and mirrors.
    When we used the death penalty pre 1962 there was no registry and the murder rate per 100,000 was a lot lower than in every year since.
    In fact in many years since it’s been double the pre 1962 numbers.
    Duh,

47. Property rights are on the radar of the Conservative Party, the intent to enshrine them was brought up during the last election.
    … to which Paul Martin likened to as a plot to re-introduce child labour.

48. Here in Ottawa (damn, just gave away my secret location) we have just had a spate of knifings.
    We need a national knife register, Yes that should do it.
    I always liked the communist “each according to his need” because, ultimately, nothing, even life, is actually *necessary*. The planets wouldn’t stop turning if it wasn’t there. And, in fact, this was a loophole greatly appreciated by many Communist dictators.

49. So some freak in Quebec rapes eight girls . A bunch of women cut off his penis . Every man in Canada has a penis . Every man in Canada is a potential rapist .

50. Wimpy Canadian, don’t laugh. Muslim Terrorists worship death MORE than life. Not ??
    And the BBC worships Muslims more than the POPE. Not ??
    And Suzuki and Maurice Strong BELIEVE that humans are bad for the planet. Not ??
    Next step : UN’s population control via One World Governance.