From The Ottawa Citizen:
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says changes to Canada's gun laws could include a system to give those close to a gun owner a channel to express concerns about that person's mental health.
The system could be used if "either their friends or family or a doctor notices, or is concerned, that a person is becoming unbalanced," Day said Tuesday.
Let's listen in on a typical call:
"Yeah, Hello? Rat Line? My good buddy Bob up in #412 has been acting real crazy lately. You better come take away his shotgun, and his rifle, and all his other unregistered guns. And his homemade bombs. You better come in blastin', just to be on the safe side.
My name? My name is Heywood J. Blome."
cool . . we can turn you in
No, a better way is to simply assume ALL gun owners are unstable (by definition; they own guns!) and simply confiscate them all in the middle of the night.
If there's one thing that Stalin and Hitler taught us, is that gun control is easy if you reeeeeally want to do it.
BCL, I'm amazed at you. You've ignored the big story du jour, the LPC proposal to reduce the Cons proposed tax on income trusts. While I realize this is bit of an esoteric subject which requires some financial acumen probably beyond the level of your average liberal blogger it nevertheless could turn out to be the election winner for you guys, there's over a million folks who own these things and they vote. Stephi did something right for Chris' sakes. Instead you saw away at Kyoto and Stockwell?
Division of Labor, anon 1:42. If I don't mock Stockwell, who will? Besides, look at the front page of the Post today. B.C. vs. Alberta: Green vs. Mean. Mother Earth still tops my agenda.
I think the gun-tottin' Christo-Crazies are starting to scare even Stockwell.
Must have been all the rape and death threats from Christians Amanda Marcotte has been receiving lately.
Trollies...rape and death threats aren't funny. Just an FYI.
Anonymous 12:42pm, you just proved Godwin's law. Now go an find a grown-up way to debate this.
BTW, incorrect use of Godwin's Law. If you are debating say, the merits of kitty litter, and somebody calls you a Nazi, then GL is appropriate.
However, if you are debating an issue in which legitimate references can be made to Hitler, say about World War Two, then referring to something Hitler actually did does NOT invoke GL. But if in the discussion about WWII, and somebody calls you a Nazi, well 'just because', then GL is appropriate.
Gun control is the friend of dictators and genocidal masterminds alike.
Then why is BushCo so against it? Look, when we've got weapons that can vaporise whole swaths of a civilian population if the State wants, your little squirrel rifles aren't going to be of much use. Or is it your semi-automatics and surface-to-air missile launchers your worried about losing?
Gun enthusiasts should stop irritating people who aren't interested in guns and do more to marginalise the crazies in their ranks (most of the gun trolls on the Internet sound absolutely psychotic), or the rest of us will keep getting the impression you're all nuts and can't be trusted with these deadly weapons at all.
Actually no, it's a correct use of Godwin, since it can be invoked in relation to things that Hitler actually did. For example, in debating vegetarianism, you might be inclined to say "but Hitler was a vegetarian!" That is entirely an uncontroversial truth, but it says nothing about the merits of vegetarianism. I like my steak, but I don't use Hitler to defend my preference.
Likewise, not every country that has restrictive firearms laws has gone the way of Nazi Germany (or Stalinist USSR, or whatever). Conversely, not every nation with cheap and unrestricted access to firearms is safe and civilized. You have invoked Hitler/Stalin/Mao as an emotional ploy.
The UK (guns banned) is now spiralling into crime stats that lead all of Europe, and are higher than the US in many aspects. They have almost thrown up their hands in complete surrender. The police are afraid to leave the station.
Switzerland (where people have REAL FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES and ammunition at home) has a very low crime/murder rate.
US cities like Washington DC, Chicago, Destroyed (Detroit) which have very restrictive gun laws, have very high rates of illegal gun use. Surprise. Areas with relatively lax laws and/or concealed carry options have exceedingly low, lower than Canada, crime rates.
US non-gun murder rates (knife, bat, fists, etc) are high, so they just tend to murder each other, period.
Australia which banned handguns and most long arms is also enduring gun crime spiralling out of control.
Israel, where you can see hot teenaged Israeli chicks buying ice cream with M-16's slung over their backs, also has low crime and have almost eliminated terrorist shootings. Bombings and rockets are another matter altogether, not typical criminal activity.
The fact of the matter is, a good person is a good person no matter what they hold in their hands. The mall shooting in Utah? - wacko with guns kills people, but off-duty cop with concealed handgun corners him within minutes and isolates him until uniforms arrive. Didn't hear that in the MSM did ya? Both had guns; why didn't the off-duty copy with the CCW start shooting innocent shoppers too? Because he's a good guy. No matter what gun you put in MY hands, no one will be harmed. I have no problem with restricting whose hands have guns, but if you can shoot a flintlock safely, a machine gun is simply a gun that eats up ammunition FA$$$$T! No more of a danger.
In Canada, you're more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death (with alcohol as a contributing factor) if you're going to be murdered.
The average gun owner is by far one of the most responsible and law-abiding members of society. They own guns. Criminals own guns. By liberal logic, if we keep track of these lawabiding people with guns, it'll reduce crime. Never mind the fact that the criminals CAN NOT be found within that group. It's like the farmer trying to protect his chickens from coyotes by making sure his dogs are licensed, and then keeping an eye on them alone.
So previously you stated that gun control was a building block for totalitarian police states. In your most recent argument you say, "The UK (guns banned) is now spiralling into crime stats that lead all of Europe... The police are afraid to leave the station." So banning guns leads both to police states AND complete anarchy?
Major social phenomena are often rooted in a variety of complex factors.
Gun-crime in the UK is off the charts. So much for the gun-free 'utopia' they crowed about after essentially banning all firearms (from law-abiding citizens, I don't have to remind you, not criminals) in a knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane.
What more evidence do you need, Dan, but yes, banning guns leads to a police state by definition. You tell me if they have peace and order in the UK or does it more closely resemble anarchy?
What the hell, let's throw another log on the fire.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, taking guns away from non-criminals has no impact on the behaviour of criminals. Don't give me this 'well, if you own a gun then it can be stolen and used in a crime' bullsh!t because we see that criminals will do whatever they need to do to get them. They take the easiest route. If it's buying a gun, they'll do that. If you restrict purchases, they'll steal them. If you ban guns entirely, they'll smuggle them in or kill police for them, as they do in India, or make them themselves. It doesn't stop them or slow them down.
no dan what he was saying is that the gun registry takes guns away from innocent people who would not shoot you and leaves the criminals with unregistered guns that might shoot you one day.that's what the registry was.because if you haven't noticed they keep on inventing a new law to eliminate another type of gun and another and another until only criminals have them or the elite.
That is, if you believe socialist dogma, all they need to do is double-ban guns.
Oh, well, I see there are two Anons here. You've trotted out two more old saws from the (pardon the pun) pro-gun arsenal.
"the gun registry takes guns away from innocent people who would not shoot you and leaves the criminals with unregistered guns that might shoot you one day."
Registration is not the same as confiscation. I have never understood this. You register your car, dog, boat, any major work done on your house, your business, you even get a license to fish. Why not guns? Did Moses, err, Charlie Heston tell you not to?
Another gun argument: you build this wall between "lawful gun owners" and "criminals" as though one could never cross over.
Additionally, you have cited an example of an off-duty cop saving the day with his gun. Yeah, did you notice the part where he's a cop? Isolating a gunman with killing either yourself or the gunman is a world away from bellying up to the firing range and squeezing off a few rounds at a piece of paper. Can you do that? Physically? Mentally? For real, not just in a daydream or in Doom3? Could you actually wield a weapon that way? Would you bet your life on this ability?
Collecting guns in this way is like collected guitars, you may have them, you may even know how to use them, but if Jimmy Page or Eric Clapton or whoever jammed his finger and he asked you to sit in, could you? Incidentally, if you mess up a song you just die from embarrassment.
There's a million anons post to this blog. Or perhaps only one, pretending to be many. Impossible to say.
dan, you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
Go do some reading, gain an understanding of the issue, and then discuss it. Knee-jerk reactions, fear and ignorance just aren't good debating tools.
Gun owners would LOVE to have guns registered like cars. Go figure out why. Also try to understand why licensing cars doesn't prevent their theft, misuse in speeding, or being driven drunk.
Understand the difference between licensing, registration, and when confiscation has occurred in Canada.
Learn about what the average gun owner is like as an individual, and compare that to the typical criminal. See how closely related they are. Do you know any gun owners?
The fact that it was an off-duty cop who intervened in the mall tells us several things. One, a good guy with a gun doesn't go around randomly shooting people, JUST because he has a gun. Two, a good guy with a gun can IMMEDIATELY change the focus of the shooter from offensively shooting unarmed victims at will to defensively trying to prevent himself from getting shot. Lives were saved IMMEDIATELY. Three, the training that the police have can be duplicated by 'civilians'; there is nothing special about it. That cop was once an untrained civilian; look what he did. Four, a trained civilian who has a firearm in that situation does NOT have to do anything immediately. They spend a lot of timing on judging the situation, learning when to shoot and when not to. You also learn how to identify yourself. To just stand up and start shooting is something Hollywood might think you'd believe, but an adult would think otherwise.
I don't play violent video games, I have no idea how I would react in that situation presently. But I am a very capable shot. I want the choice to be able to take the training and prepare myself such that I would not simply be a helpless wimpering victim at the mercy of some lunatic. If that's your choice, fine. But don't force others to have to live their lives according to your rules. Isn't that what a free Canada is about?
Post a Comment