Yes, absolutely. I've heard too many Canadians recently talk about their second amendment rights. It's scary. Canada does not have a second amendment. There is no right to bear arms in this country. While I'm at it let me shoot down (no pun intended) the few arguments against gun control. First there is the argument that 'if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns.' That's true, because if you have an illegal gun you will automatically be a criminal. Guns for self defense make no sense and do not work.
"...research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48)."By having a gun in the home you are actually putting your family and any potential guests at greater risk.
Then there is the black helicopter argument - that if the government has guns and the population doesn't that the government will become oppressive and 'the people' will have no means of defense. This is almost cartoonishly naive. First even if all firearms were legal for everyone - the 'government' has fighter planes and bombers, helicopters, tanks and missiles your handgun will do you no good. If you look around the world where insurrections are being fought none of them are being fought with hand guns. Very few are being fought with guns at all. In most cases they are either being fought with improvised weapons, sabotage and "terrorism" or the insurrection has acquired military grade weapons. Additionally there are dozens of countries around the world where brutal dictators rule and the population is armed to the teeth. When the U.S. Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." they are talking about the 'National Guard' or other military reserves, not the general population. Having firearms does not defend against repressive government, not even just a little.
So just like you need a license to drive or fish you should need a license to own any firearm. This license should require a background check, a written test on gun safety and no history of violent crime. A license should only be granted to persons over the age of 18. If we don't trust you with a beer we're not trusting you with a gun. Minors should not be allowed to own, possess or use firearms. These licenses should only apply to rifles.
Hand guns should be banned in total. They should not be allowed to be bought, sold or possessed in Canada. Unlike rifles which are used for hunting and defending farm animals there is no legitimate reason to own a handgun. Some will say that they like target shooting with hand guns. To that I can only suggest that you get a new hobby. If a person currently possesses a handgun of some kind of historical significance it should be fixed so that it no longer fires and that work should be verified by law enforcement.
This won't end violent crime but if no one can get hand guns, then fewer people will be shot with them. If the police can automatically incarcerate anyone found with a hand gun it will make the process easier for them and will start to diminish the number of firearms available.
Humanity has made great strides since the 18th century. The thought that the entire civilian population should be armed, which is not even a Canadian concept, should be put to rest alongside a number of other bad ideas from that era that we've already abandoned.
Previous:
My Platform: Introduction
My Platform: Arts and Culture
My Platform: Poverty
My Platform: Business and Industry
My Platform: Crime
My Platform: Carbon Tax
My Platform: Labour and Workplace Reform
My Platform: Electoral and Ethics Reform
My Platform: Education
5 comments:
On March 8th, you wrote, "Guns for self defense make no sense, and do not work." Maybe not in Canada, but they sure do in the USA. Here are 4 random stories of people saved by guns here on 03/06/09
"An Opileka man approached by a gunman demanding money Thursday night took matters in his own hands by drawing his own weapon and shooting the robber police said." OAnow.com 03/06/09
"A deadly shooting in an Orange County neighborhood was deemed to be in self defense according to information released this morning." Orlando Sentinel 03/06/09
"Ville Platte police detectives are investigating an incident in which a woman killed a man who said he took her boyfriend hostage and invaded her home. The woman, Nedra Gallow, said she shot 19 year old Antonio Thompson twice in self defense after he broke into her home." Thetowntalk.com 03/06/09
"Investigators believe a man shot his son Thursday morning in self defense and have filed charges against the son." IndyStar.com 03/06/09
You also said , "Having firearms does defend against repressive government, not even just a little."
It might have made just a "little" difference as thousands of disarmed Sudanese were recently systematically slaughtered by Junjaweed government armed and sponsored terrorists riding camels. Don't you think so? They didn't even have improvised weapons to fight back with. Just ask King George about firearms fighting back against a repressive government too. That was a challenge Canadian colonists never stood up to that gave us our bill of rights freedoms, including the First and Second Amendments that elitist Canadians like you don't have and can only dream and write about.
You then state that just like you need a license to drive or fish, you should need a license to own any firearm. Maybe they are needed for Canadian computer's word processors and writers. Oh, that's right, Canada doesn't have a First Amendment either, does it. So your "Journalistic freedom" is at the whim of Ottawa too, isn't it?
And then you say, "This won't end violent crime, but if no one can get hand guns, then fewer people will be shot with them." Just how do you propose to get handguns from criminals who have them already? They don't obey gun laws anyway.
laws can made to be disobeyed and scoffed at too. Maybe a few more laws will make gun wielding criminals see the light and turn in their guns like good Canadians should.
On March 8th, you wrote, "Guns for self defense make no sense, and do not work." Maybe not in Canada, but they sure do in the USA. Here are 4 random stories of people saved by guns here on 03/06/09 "An Opileka man approached by a gunman demanding money ...
No they don't. That's what those statistics I cited mean. For every incident like the one you mentioned, where someone actually defended him/herself with a gun there are 43 accidental shootings, or one family member shooting another in a rage etc., By having a gun in the house you and your family are far less safe, not more.
It might have made just a "little" difference as thousands of disarmed Sudanese were recently systematically slaughtered by Junjaweed government armed and sponsored terrorists riding camels. Don't you think so?
Maybe, but probably not. having an armed population doesn't seem to have made much difference in Kenya, Rowanda, Somalia, Indonesia, etc., You then state that just like you need a license to drive or fish, you should need a license to own any firearm. Maybe they are needed for Canadian computer's word processors and writers. Oh, that's right, Canada doesn't have a First Amendment either, does it. So your "Journalistic freedom" is at the whim of Ottawa too, isn't it?
There isn't any mention of 'journalism' specifically in the US constitution either. There is free press and speech but not journalism. Free speech is also covered in the Canadian Charter, but guns aren't - perhaps you should read it? And then you say, "This won't end violent crime, but if no one can get hand guns, then fewer people will be shot with them." Just how do you propose to get handguns from criminals who have them already? They don't obey gun laws anyway.
If handguns are legal for some, and sold in stores it is easy for people who aren't supposed to have them to get them. If it is illegal to own, possess, buy or sell hand guns period it makes it considerably harder. They can't be imported, the can't be sold in stores or gun shows and if police find them anywhere they can seize them without questioning whether or not they are legal guns.
[b]No they don't. That's what those statistics I cited mean. For every incident like the one you mentioned, where someone actually defended him/herself with a gun there are 43 accidental shootings, or one family member shooting another in a rage etc., By having a gun in the house you and your family are far less safe, not more.[/b]
Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad. Go here http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/lrstlupl.htm
Also, sited by the author notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were “inaccurate” , and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities.
Further more... Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.201 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than
hurt a family member.
If you don't like that study you could also try these
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
Kellermann AL. "Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes." JAMA 1995; 273(22):1759-62.
Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329: 1084-1091.
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide, 2004.
WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control, 2004 data, http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html (hereafter Injury Mortality Reports).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children – 26 industrialized countries."
Why Americans are so interested in Canadian gun law is baffling to me, but whatever.
I have no real vested interest in Canada's gun laws since I am a US citizen. If Canada wants to ban guns then that is the choice of the Canadian citizens.
However, the US Constitution's Second Amendment does ensure the US citizen's right to keep and bear arms. No, the militia clause does not limit the right to the National Guard. In the Heller vs. DC case, the US Supreme Court definitively ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right. This is the only Supreme Court ruling on an individual versus collective right.
As to the effectiveness of resistance to tyrannical government with light arms – rifles, shotguns and handguns – guerilla operations make heavy weapons far less effective; and an unarmed resistance is nearly impossible. I’ll keep my light arms.
Post a Comment