Hear, hear. Well said.
Just like a fishing lure: bright, attractive prose concealing a bitter barb. Well crafted bait, my friend! 
Well said, sir. I don't own a gun and have no desire to. But it's mighty presumptuous of some to assume there's no reason to.
And believe it or not, once upon a time I used to be pro-gun control...
Culture? Rights? Who gives a good god damn. If the police, the military and rich people can have guns, then so can I.
Hey, I'll give you target shooting. But I don't see the point of collecting handguns that you can't use, or even display, under current law.
"Because I'm a target shooter" is , to me a legitimate reason to want to own a handgun. And hunting or target shooting are legitimate reasons to own long guns. But I just don't get the "collecting". I think it's reasonable to say that citizens shouldn't be able to "collect" items whose sole purpose is killing other human beings (I'm talking handguns here, long guns have other uses such as hunting and, well... OK hunting).
You want to "collect" guns used for target shooting, and just not fire them? Fine, that makes no sense to me, but I don't see the harm. But I think the potential danger that other handguns pose to the owner, his or her family and friends, and the public at large (should it fall into the wrong hands) outweighs the gunowner's right to a "hobby". And I just don't think that's a radical or bigoted position.
Sometimes minority cultures have to take a back seat for the greater good, Skippy. We don't allow widows to be pushed onto funeral pyres, and we don't accept honor killings as an excuse to murder and we certainly don't allow female circumcision. I'm afraid in this case, gun ower minority culture may just have to join the female circumcision folks as oppressed minorities. Sorry.
That's fine, Greg.
But we aren't talking about pushing widows onto funeral pyres, honor killings, or female circumcision.
We're talking about a blanket ban on handguns. And in that context, "I don't understand, and I don't intend to learn" is simply not an acceptable attitude, although it's depressingly common.
The greater good has yet to be demonstrated here. And we can't get to a serious discussion of the issues as long as people are proudly declaring their wilful ignorance.
Hold on, I don't think anyone of the handgun murderers had a possession/carrying permit, so they were all illegal guns. So what is wrong with the laws we have now? Shouldn't we fix them before we start adding new ones? Basically it is extremely hard to have a handgun now, and harder to carry one (I have only known 1 man in my life outside of police that had a permit to carry and he held secrets that the bad guys wanted). If we can't enforce these laws what will adding new laws do?
What I am saying Skippy is the cultural defence does not hold if public safety is in jeopardy. You are right about one thing though. I want to see more proof about public safety being in jeopardy if we don't have an outright ban.
Yes, Greg (the second), I agree. And that's why I fully back certain gun control measures, such as controls on maximum magazine capacity, safe storage, a ban on automatic weapons and on certain weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic fire, and even a ban on "assault rifles," although the last one is problematic because of the definition. In those cases, you can make clear public safety arguments that outweigh the libertarian counterargument.
I raise the cultural defence here because the Liberals are exploiting knee-jerk prejudices about guns, combined with the interference of the NRA, for political ends.
Whether it's the collapse of the fossil fuel economy or catastrophic weather events or SARS or avian flu or ebola or nuclear terrorism or whatever...we're heading for some heavy shit, no? To take sides over gun control as if it's some high school debate seems pointless in that context.
If you and your family are holed up in a hilltop shack while the plague is raging outside your door, would you want to have a gun when strangers come knocking? I would.
How much have firearm offences decreased in the UK since handguns were banned? o They didn't. They almost doubled. (National Post, October 28, 2005)
What percentage of gun crimes are committed by lawful registered handguns in Canada? Where police have detailed firearm information, 84% of homicides were committed with unregistered firearms and four of every five (79%) accused persons did not possess a valid firearms license. (Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statisics)
How much has Canada's homicide rate risen in the past year? 12% (Statistics Canada)
What are the sentences for the trafficking in illegal firearms, including assault rifles? ? Minimum sentence of only one year
How many unfilled RCMP positions are there currently in Canada? 1,059 (Tabled in Parliament on November 14, 2005 by Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan)
What happened to Canada's Ports Police, which once patrolled and protected against gun smuggling? Dismantled in 1997 by the Liberal government
What powers do Customs officials have to fight gun smuggling at our borders? No powers of arrest
Did Mr. Martin's Bill C-82, introduced on November 25, 2005, propose to toughen violent gun crime penalties?No
Did Mr. Martin's Bill C-82, introduced on November 25, 2005, propose to toughen penalties for serious drug offences?
No
How many illegal firearms are there in Canada, according to federal government agencies? They have no idea
Joe,
You're asking too many sensible questions. Are you sure this country is for you?
Last I checked, banning something was generally the best way to make people want it.
Yick.
If this handgun ban works out, I think we should take a serious look at making marijuana possession illegal.
Interesting discussion in the comments section, far more interesting than the actual post really.
As Skippy himself said, it's not a question of defending cultural rights, but of whether those cultural rights should be protected.
In other words, it doesn't really matter why someone wants to own a handgun, 'culture', 'fun', whatever, no more than it matters if you kill your neighbour as part of an honour obligation, or some such. The question is do the rights pose a danger to society, and will revoking those rights make society safer. Or something like that.
And nice comment Joe Lamerde.
Hey. Never thought I'd come out in favour of a post here . . . but yeah Wonderdog.
Although, the histories don't back up your fishing anology. During serfdom England didn't allow fishing by the people. It was under the same moratoreum as hunting. It belonged to the Lord and only he could dictate who could fish or hunt.
Cheers,
lance
Actually nice to see a level headed ,straight discusion of this from an admitted Left -leaning person....As noted ,some of your commentary was pretty good ,too. But there was one little item I'd like to point out to you......As you noted,correctly,unlike the U.S.,gun ownership is not protected under our Charter.In fact,(and this should worry you) private property and the rights to same,aren't covered at all.....This confiscation plan may not worry a lot of (mostly urban) people,because guns are an easy target.And no,unlike a Dave Berg strip in a Mad magaszine ,us gun owners don't rub oil sensously and lovingly over our weapons every day..But while this may be an item a lot of people wouldn't care was banned or not,under the Charter(and a Liberal nanny state) what might be the next item up for grabs for the public good?.....it just might be something you or your loved ones treasure owning ,or doing........Just a little something to think about ,you know. As you know how the old litany goes,"And when they came for me,there was nobody left to protest."
never mind minimums sentences.
as has been posted on a few comments sites, the major issues are the presumption to bail (especially for handgun offences) that lets a suspect apprehended at Yorkdale out on a 10k bail (which to me is nothing... as it is to drug dealers or any candian of moderate means), the almost total bias to concurrent sentences (no matter how my convictions you have, you're only serving the longest sentence), the 2x credit for time served before sentencing (you shouldn't get any credit for time served), and the statutory 1/3 parole and 2/3 statutory release. People that are getting a 10 year stretch for manslaughter, with no bail and a fast trial will only serve 2 years after sentencing. They'll only spend 4 years in jail total. Never mind people that get little sentences like 5 years. We need sentences that last for many years. Gun posession, given current policies, should be 10 years, minimum, and there should be mno possibility of concurrent sentences. You should all the terms for the crimes you commit, so that if you rob someone using a gun, you are going away for a very long time, and so that custody before and during you trial doesn't end up springing you before you spend any appreciable time in jail.
The best way to rehabilitate criminals is to get them out of their criminal years. Release them when they're 45 and they'll have a much lower recidivism rate than if you release them when they are 25.
As for handguns: they're already effectively banned, and the "new" police announcements are a drop in the bucket. Give customs guns, power of arrest, and 3x manpower, while also increasing RCMP by 1500+ officers. We could also staff up RCMP to full level, and get all provinces to establish their own constabularies, rather than having a federal police force that hands out speeding and parking tickets from Newfoundland to BC.
"Although, the histories don't back up your fishing anology. During serfdom England didn't allow fishing by the people. It was under the same moratoreum as hunting. It belonged to the Lord and only he could dictate who could fish or hunt."
Sorry, but that's not true. Hunting was the sport of nobles, but fishing was apparently a sport of the middle class.
The Treatise actually tells us, quite explicitly, that fishing rights were controlled by individual landowners, who were not necessarily nobles:
"Ye that can angle & take fysshe to your plesures as this forsayd treatyse techyth & shewyth you: I charge & requyre you in the name of alle noble men that ye fysshe not in noo poore mannes seuerall water: as his ponde: stewe: or other necessary thynges to kepe fysshe in wythout his lycence & good wyll."
That's from the first printed manuscript (1496): fish not in no poor man's private water (such as his pond, tank, or other things for keeping fish) without his licence and good will.
In English tradition, a distinction is made between coarse fishing and fishing for trout and salmon. By the 19th century, trout and salmon (especially salmon) fishing rights were controlled by the landed gentry. However, the Treatise does not recognize any such distinction.
Neither does Walton make any distinction, or any reference to "coarse fishing." I believe it arose during the 18th century.
We now return to your scheduled programming.
so what next? you'll make a case for people to have a right to collect child porn?
Lol. I think you need to re-read his post and comments more carefully Al. His thoughts on the subject are not as black and white as your comment suggests.
Bravo skippy. I am for the kinds of controls we have in place but these Liberal proposals are all flash and no substance.
And lets get rid of this whol left-right thing right now guys. Skippy and myself are unabashed lefties and even NDP supporters. But I am a hunter and a gun owner and I think banning is silly when ther are other more effective means that have yet to be tried.
Joe makes some notes of the stats.
Lets try basing our opinions on verifiable facts and evidence rather than ideology.
I am pro-gun control and anti-ban. I support the Firearms registry, but not the monterous boondlogle the Liberals made out of it.
Do you see the difference?
" so what next? you'll make a case for people to have a right to collect child porn?"
I think that was Stephen Harper's suggestion last time around, but it wasn't directed at me. This one is a little more creative, though, kind of a double-dumbass with a twist.
Thanks for the creative insult, but what I'm really going for is "You must hate democracy!"
Think you can work that one in, Al?
And may I add, Al, that it's mighty impressive how you accuse me of lowering the level of discourse by calling Paul Martin "filth" for his political exploitation of the Montréal massacre, and then you respond to a reasoned post with this stuff about child porn. Your moral high ground is getting a little swampy, methinks.
Thoughtful posts, and very refreshing for a western Canadian who enjoys target shooting!
Another couple of thoughts:
The "Social Reengineering" aspect should raise alarm bells for people of all political stripes (Sharon Carstairs said it). Registration and confiscation is proceeding quickly. Remember, if it's OK to forcibly reengineer me, then it's OK to do it to you,too.
I'm pretty sure I feel as attacked and harrassed today as gay people felt in the 1950's. I'm being ostracised, feared, punished, and having my traditional freedoms attacked. And I've never hurt anyone, ever.
Most dictatorships in the last 2000 years of history have started out with "Lets disarm the citizens, first". The "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia occured in part because the Army had the only guns, and were mostly Serbians. That did not change until the ethnic minorities started breaking into armouries. Of course, this is nice, gentle Canada and power-mad governments could never appear here!
I don't want to live in a culture of fear. We as a society are going that way at great speed. We are being taught to fear our neighbor's gun, teenage kid, or whatever. Senselessly.
The world is full of guns. They are a very simple machine. Any half-assed handyman can make one, any person can buy one. Pieces of paper signed by politicians in Ottawa doesn't change that. We've been trying for 60 years to make thermonuclear weapons go away...and failing.
It's all about human beings. It always is. We succeed when we concentrate on the behaviour of people who actually hurt other people, not inanimate matter.
Why does Paul Martin want to hurt me, when the problem is a Toronto criminal?
Thoughts?
Greg (12.08.05 - 5:47 pm) said: "We don't allow widows to be pushed onto funeral pyres."
But we do allow people to own matches and sticks. Not banning guns doesn't mean we can't ban certain actions people might take with those guns (like shooting other people), just like not banning matches and sticks doesn't mean we can't ban certain actions people might take with those items (like burning widows).
Skippy,
Excellent aticle dude, I enjoyed reading it although the memories of standing waist deep in the Bow River did cause a shiver up my spine.
Joe Lamerde certainly does make some fine points too.Lord Kitchen sink has obviously never been into mechanical things or history as collecting guns can be appreciated for other values than killing. Take something mechanical, either gun, camera or automobile from a hundred years ago and look at the workmanship and see how it was done back then. And then tell me when was the last time a 7-11 was robbed using a cap and ball musket.
An excellent post, sir!
If I may, as one of your southern neighbors, present an opinion that I believe has been lost in the minds of many.
The "right to keep and bear arms" carries with it an inherent responsibility on the part of whoever exercises this right. As we have heard in the past "guns don't kill people; people kill people..."
There are, unfortunately, those who do not respect human life, and, as the old saying goes, "They muck it up for the rest of us..."
I can understand the reasoning behind a blanket gun ban, and I can understand the cries of folks who never want to see another mass murder involving a firearm.
But at what point do we penalize the vast majority of gun owners who have shown themselves responsible and law-abiding. Will their right be supressed because a reletively few miscreants committed horrible acts?
I believe that this ties (somewhat) into want you are saying...
Commenting by HaloScan
