Toward Canadian Gun Confiscationgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Latest Canadian Gun Control Totalitarianism LinkAs of January 1, 2001 You'll need a firearms licence (picture) to buy ammunition (picture).
A Possession-Only Licence OR a Possession and Acquisition Licence will do. A valid FAC will do as well. A hunting or driver's licence won't.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 17, 2000
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.So, WHO exactly lives in a totalitarian regime?
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 17, 2000.
Paul,These stats have nothing to do with whether or not their ruling regime is totalitarian.
Also, we now have 250,000,000+ people and a multi-lingual, multicultural population. What are the stats for the countries you are citing? Also, how about violent crime in general, e.g. knives, aggravaed assault, rape, etc?
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 17, 2000.
"These stats have nothing to do with whether or not their ruling regime is totalitarian. "You are quite correct. They show that they have a lot fewer people murdered by guns in these countries - per capita and total volume. I have been to most of these countries and there is nothin "totalitarian" about them - unless you believe that one must live in a country where dying at the end of a gun is a hallmark of civilization.
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 17, 2000.
"unless you believe that one must live in a country where dying at the end of a gun is a hallmark of civilization."Are you perhaps refering to Afganistan, or maybe Colombia? No one that I know in America believes such. Of course in Russia, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and back in Nazi Germany, you just might die at the end of the gun of a government agent. Just try opening your mouth in one of these places and talking about freedom.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 17, 2000.
paul,
No offense, but if you don't like it in America, why don't you move to one of those countries on your little list?
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 17, 2000.
Gosh that sounds awfully familiar: "Love it or leave it". No thanks. I prefer to try and change things from within.
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 17, 2000.
paul,
Then here's an idea for you: why don't you stop trying to punish those who have done nothing wrong(legal gun owners), and instead get on your elected officials to start putting the criminals in prison for a looooong time or into the electric chair, depending on what the crime may be.
Taking my gun away because I MIGHT break the law with it is akin to taking your car away because you MIGHT speed with it.The only difference is that my gun is protected by the Constitution; your car is not.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 18, 2000.
In a non-binding sense of the Senate amendment voted on Wednesday, Se. Trent Lotts measure calling for better enforcement of existing gun laws and underscoring the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, garnered broad bipartisan support.However, thirty senators voted against the measure, including three Republicans, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Fred Thompson of Tennessee, and George Voinovich of Ohio. For whatever reason, these three Republican senators, along with Democrats, are now on record as saying that private gun ownership in America should be under review. Those not supporting the citizens right of gun ownership are as follows:
Daniel Akaka, D - Hawaii Evan Bayh, D - Indiana Joseph Biden, D - Delaware Barbara Boxer, D - California Lincoln Chafee, R - Rhode Island Thomas Daschle, D - South Dakota Richard Durbin, D - Illinois Dianne Feinstein, D - California Bob Graham, D - Florida Earnest Hollings, D - South Carolina Daniel Inouye, D - Hawaii Tim Johnson, D - South Dakota Edward Kennedy, D - Massachusetts Bob Kerry, D - Nebraska Herb Kohl, D - Wisconsin Frank Lautenberg, D - New Jersey Carl Levin, D - Michigan Barbara Mikulski, D - Maryland Daniel Moynihan, D - New York Jack Reed, D - Rhode Island Harry Reid, D - Nevada Charles Robb, D - Virginia John D. Rockefeller, D - West Virginia Paul Sarbanes, D - Maryland Charles Schumer, D - New York Fred Thompson, R - Tennessee Robert Torricelli, D - New Jersey George Voinovich, R - Ohio Paul Wellstone, D - Minnesota
If one of these is yours, I urge you to go to there website and seek clarification of their views.
-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 18, 2000.
Paul,It is no accident of history that the most heavily armed nation on earth is also the one that enjoys the most Liberty...
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), May 18, 2000.
I'm sorry, but I don't call almost 10 thousand human killed by guns every year to be "liberty". Carnage might be a better word.
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 18, 2000.
If numbers are so important, Paul, then where is the march for stronger DUI laws? More are killed that way, even with both figures declining (that of gun related violence and fatalities due to DUIs). This is an issue that has little to due with statistics.
-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 18, 2000.
Paul,Do you believe if we got rid of guns that those 10,000 would somehow magically all be alive? Do you believe that a husband who comes home and finds his wife cheating would just say "I'm gonna kill that bastard. I'm gonna....oh! darn. I don't have a gun. Guess I'm gonna just have to sit on my hands..".
A gun is a TOOL just like a hammer, a knife, a baseball bat or a box of rat poison. How do you explain the HUGE murder rates in Russia where private ownership of firearms is prohibited? Or the stabbing rampages in Holland that are leading them to introduce 'Knife Buyback Programs'?
Did you know that once Russia opened up to the west they tried to introduce baseball there? Unfortunately the Russians weren't interested in baseball but they were *very* interested in Aluminum Baseball Bats. So much so that they utlimately prohibted their import. Know why? Because thugs were using the bats to beat people to death. A gun has no will of it's own, only the hand that wields it does...
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), May 18, 2000.
Paul,You haven't mentioned where you live, but have you considered California or New York or Massachusetts? They all have rather strict gun laws and most people are happy they live there. Of course, you really be a lot less safe than if you were in Arizona or Idaho or most other pro-gun states.
I notice that The Netherlands is now having to outlaw knives due to excessive crimes of violence involving them. And as Tech32 said, after that will baseball bats be next?
Please reconsider if tearing down the Constitution will make America a safer place. No Way!
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 18, 2000.
FlashTech
Please. No one but you folks are talking about "banning" guns, this is hyperbole from the NRA and the left wing - both clueless on a pragmatic approach. What (IMHO) the country needs is a NATIONAL gun control policy - scrap the thousands of state laws that are never enforced. Have a referendum and be done with it: Trigger locks? Registration? Concealed carry? Let Americans of the Twenty first century decide how they are going to deal with guns.
Finally, just because other countries do not have the gun culture that we do, does not mean that they are "totalitarian". Let's not denigrate other cultures or societies because their perspective differs. These countries on my list are not repressed, just different.
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 18, 2000.
Paul,Most of the 'Moms' at the MMM *were* talking about banning guns. Also, I defy you to find a SINGLE instance where a government has registered privately owned guns that has NOT led to confiscation. Just a single instance is all I ask. You can look hard, but you won't find it.
Regarding a referrendum; that's not how a Republic works (and we are a Republic NOT a Democracy). The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of what they called 'The Tyranny of the Majority' and how it could/would be used to quash individual rights and freedoms.
You see Paul, gun ownership is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEDGE and you cannot be required to get a license to exercise a right. Would you think it legal if the majority somehow decided that you needed a license to go to church? How about to buy a newspaper?
If you think gun owners are overreacting let me leave you with a few quotes from the man who has TWICE SWORN to uphold the Constitution:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people." -President Bill Clinton on "MTV" 1993
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" -President Bill Clinton at press conference in Piscataway NJ 3/1/93, Boston Globe 3/2/93 & USA Today 3/11/93
"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." -- Bill Clinton on MTV's "Enough is Enough", 4/19/1994
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- Bill Clinton (May 29, 1993)
"There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns." -President Bill Clinton while signing the Brady Bill 1993
Please tell me how the above quotes jibe with the philosophy of the Founding Fathers that 'the Constitution are the chains that bind Government'. I'd really like to hear this...
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), May 18, 2000.
Paul,A few more for you to consider....(not from BJC though):
"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a SOCIALIST America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." -HCI President Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, p.3
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno on "Good Morning America" 12/10/93
"We must be able to arrest people BEFORE they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." -Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
Still think banning guns is just 'hyperbole'??
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), May 18, 2000.
TechYou really don't get it, do you? If we are to have peace between those who want guns banned and those who believe that there should be no restrictions, we need a third option.
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 18, 2000.
Paul,In terms of banning guns, Ms. Thomases, the organizer of the march, referred to the Second Admendment as "irrelevant." And her sidekick, Ms. O'Donnell, has openingly stated that handguns need to be banned.
It also isn't NRA hyperbole when Sen. Robert Torricelli, D - New Jersey, promotes a "10 Point Plan" to keep firearms out of "our communities" on his website. And may I remind you that 30 senators just yesterday would not sign off on a non-binding resolution supporting the right of private gun ownership. Organizations like the NRA and the SAS are simply responding to realistic threats to constitutional freedoms.
-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 18, 2000.
Paul,Actually Paul you don't get it. There is no third option here. Either it is a right or it's not. If it's a right it's NOT up for negotiation. Period.
So many have been lied to (see the quote from Sarah Brady) that they THINK they know what they are opposing. So many of those calling for new laws have NO idea what it takes to get a gun today.
The media, deliberately or through lazyness, have failed to adequately inform them of the FACTS, choosing instead to accept statements from PR folks with agendas. When I hear a statistic put forth by ANYONE (including the NRA) I go to the source and see for myself just what the numbers really say.
Do people get shot by guns? Absolutely. Do more little kids drown in buckets than are killed by guns? Yep. Are people killed and maimed every day by cars? Most certainly. Guess what Paul? The world is a dangerous place. Removing or even reducing the number of guns won't change that. Just look at Washington DC. It has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation yet still managed to become 'Murder Capitol' of the US.
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), May 18, 2000.
Paul,You may not be advocating banning guns, but that is the agenda of the major players in the gun-control arena whom you appear to support. They are using emotional arguments to try and sway the well-meaning masses to support their confiscation goal through the back door.
You say "What (IMHO) the country needs is a NATIONAL gun control policy - scrap the thousands of state laws that are never enforced. Have a referendum and be done with it: Trigger locks?"
WHY? Rampant federalization of matters which rightfully belong to the states has been going on for more than 30 years. It's one of the big problems with this country -- taking control out of local hands and concentrating it in the hands of the few -- the power elite. Look at the loss in local control of schools in the last 30 years, then compare schools now to what they were like back when the FEDs weren't involved. I can't think of anything except maybe defense against international agression that the FEDS can or have done better than people at their state and local levels. FEDERALIZATION is a cancer that is eating away at the body and soul of America.
Why do we need new laws and federal laws? There are plenty of state and local laws that are considered more than adequate by the citizens of those locales. Why should it matter to YOU what people in another soverign state do? If there are too many violent crimes in a locale, smart people either move or elect someone who will resolve the situation. We don't need people like Dan Blather and Rosie determining policy for the rest of us.
Regarding trigger locks, this is another Trojan Horse designed to make things more difficult for law-abiding gun owners. There are already lots of state and local laws regarding safe storage of firearms and mandating penalties for allowing children access to them. All that's needed is for people to obey them, and most do. Don't we have an estimated 200,000,000+ weapons in America now? The number that are hurt or killed in genuine accident situations is almost infintesimal. Sure, even one death is tragic. But let's leave that up to state and local authorities to deal with. You don't have to live or visit in a pro-gun state if you don't want to. The locals who do are exercising their God-given and Constitution-enumerated rights as they see fit.
"Registration? Concealed carry? Let Americans of the Twenty first century decide how they are going to deal with guns."
I submit that we already have, each in our own locales. There's no need to ban knives or baseball bats in my state! We have enough laws on the books already to deal with criminals.
My state licenses law-abiding citizens who wish to carry concealed weapons". I am known to my state and local law-enforcement organizations as a gun owner. Why should I let Janet Reno and her JBGT Gestapo have that information?
I accept that you may not consciously favor depriving us law-abiding gun owners of our right to own weapons. But I submit that you have not thought through the ramifications of your position and it's longer -term effect on America.
Sincerely
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 18, 2000.
Flash:I am saddened at your hard and fast position on this issue. As you surely realize, many Americans, perhaps the majority, disagree with you. Without a third option, the bitter rancorous debate between the two polarized factions can only escalate.
We have to get past the traditional debate and start understanding each others positions - rants like "if you don't like it in America, why don't you move" and "we need to ban all guns" are singularly unhelpful.
-- paul savage (aadsfdsaf@sdfsdf.com), May 18, 2000.
paul,
I am saddened by your lack of understanding of the Constitution. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not up for debate. Those that would disarm and enslave us have convinced YOU that another slight infringement is surely worth saving the lives of X number of people killed by handguns each year. The main problem with that argument is that slight infringement after slight infringement is piled on until before you know it, you have to ask PERMISSION to exercise your RIGHT to own a firearm. All the while, these infringements do NOTHING to lower the number of people killed by guns.
Since gun control does not reduce crime, ask yourself why those on the extreme left continue to push for more of it. As I posted earlier, if you want to be of help, then petition your legislators to enact laws that are tough on crime, not tough on our Second Amendment rights. Because if your Second Amendment rights go, then the rest will surely follow.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 18, 2000.
The extreme left and the extreme right on this issue are the problem. The vast majority of us in the middle want a solution or a third option. The side that is willing to compromise is the side that will win. Intransigent folks such as many found on this thread, are destined to a lifetime of teeth gnashing on the margins.
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.
Paul,Would you please state as clearly as possible what you see as the problem and propose a solution (your "third option")? Let's try starting with that as a basis for further discussion.
Pro,
Likewise, will you please state what you view as the problem and propose a solution? This is a sincere request, not an attempt to bait anyone.
I personally don't understand why we need more gun laws and restrictions that will only effect honest citizens. I see existing laws as more than adequate to deal with the problem, and as I have stated before, am against further "federalization" of anything unless clear and compelling reasons for it can be found.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 18, 2000.
Pro,The extreme left and the extreme right on this issue are the problem. The vast majority of us in the middle want a solution or a third option. The side that is willing to compromise is the side that will win. Intransigent folks such as many found on this thread, are destined to a lifetime of teeth gnashing on the margins.
The problem with that is the pro-Second Amendmant people HAVE been moving towards the 'middle ground' (as you put it) for some 70 years. Every time the gun grabbers come back they move where the 'middle ground' is.
First it was sawed-off shotguns and silencers in the 30's. Then it was machine guns, handguns, and mail order guns in the late 60's. Then in the early 90's it was waiting periods, background checks, large capacity magazines and scary looking 'assualt weapons' (the last one being 100% based on the appearance of the weapon and not it's functionality).
Where, might I ask, is the 'middle ground' going to be next time? Or the time after that??
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), May 18, 2000.
Please don't call my country totalitarian. Have you ever been here or know anything about our culture?If you did spend some time in my neck of the woods you'd find that there is broad national support for our national gun registration programme. Even in Alberta (kind of like Texas, Utah and Idaho rolled into one) there is a clear majority in favour of registering all guns.
There are many differences between the culture in America and Canada. The vast majority of Canadians do not view gun ownership as a right, and we are willing to trade some individual "freedom" for greater collective security. A large number of Americans don't like that but - guess what - it's not your country.
I live in the middle of Canada's biggest city (pop. 2.2 million) and in 1999 there were 48 murders, the majority committed by stabbing or beatings (not by guns). Wanna guess how many murders there were in Baltimore last year or Detroit or Miami.........?
I'm not going to tell you how to run your country, so please don't tell us Canucks how to run ours. We've chosen our path and we like it that way.
JC
-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.
Johnny,Nice to hear firsthand from someone up north. No one is trying to tell you how to run your country. However, I have seen evidence that more people in Canada oppose registration than you seem to be aware of. If I still have it, I'll post it. There are likely more murders every year in the city you refer to than in the entire northern half of Arizona. There many, many, guns here, and many, many responsible gun owners. The problem is in the cities and mostly related to drugs and gang-punks. Legalize and regulate drug distribution and violent cime in America will disappear in short order.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 19, 2000.
More interesting evidence that it is the culture in a locale that determines the level of violence, including violence with firearms.SIGHTINGS
Kennesaw, GA's Mandatory Gun Law A Proven Success Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw? By Chuck Baldwin 9-8-99 The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one! ! with a firearm (1997). "After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998." With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired. Yet, in both cases the thugs bent on criminal mischief decided to take their ambitions elsewhere and my family remained safe. Only God knows what would have happened if a firearm had not been handy. Yes, there are times when gun accidents occur. There are many more accidents involving automobiles, airplanes, bathroom shower stalls and backyard swimming pools, however. And let's not forget that freedom is risky business. Freedom allows people to make mistakes recognizing that the alternative is worse. A local newspaper columnist recently said that other nations are free without possessing firearms. He fails to see the obvious fact that people who are not free to own firearms are not free. Many people live their entire lives and never know a day of real freedom. And, while I'm sure that there are those who would choose to live without freedom, there are some of us who would rather die free than live enslaved.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 19, 2000.
"No one is trying to tell you how to run your country."Then why did you subtitle your post "Latest Canadian Gun Control Totalitarianism Link"? It's certainly sounds like the beginning of a smug, self-important lecture. However, I have seen evidence that more people in Canada oppose registration than you seem to be aware of.
Canada has had gun control since the 1930's, which is widely supported in all regions of the country. If you have proof to the country, I would be fascinated to see it.
There are likely more murders every year in the city you refer to than in the entire northern half of Arizona.
The city he refers to is Toronto, a multi-racial, multicultural city slightly smaller than Chicago. How can you compare a city like that with a lightly populated part of a state? Why not compare Toronto to Phoenix or Houston?
Canadians do not seek to change your gun laws, so why would you comment on ours? As a Canadian I am deeply resentful when an American refers to us as "totalitarian" simply because we have a different gun culture.
-- Toronto Bob (toronto@bob.ca), May 19, 2000.
Bob,Nice to hear from you, too. I believe that I copied the name of my post from the heading where it was posted. However, I do believe that gun registration leads ultimately to confiscation and thence to totalitarianism.
As I said in reply to Johnny, "no one is trying to tell you how to run your country". However, your's and his opinions don't reflect the views of all Canadians, either. A brief search of my on-line stuff was not successful in locating the article(s) about other Canadian's views which I mentioned. I'll keep looking and hopefully be able to post them.
I compared Toronto with Northern Arizona on a basis of per capita gun ownership. We can also compare it to Phoenix, which I'm sure has more crime, and more crime involving guns. However, Phoenix probably has a significantly lower per capita gun ownership than Northern AZ. Also, compare the crime rate in Phoenix to that of Los Angeles, Wahington D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, and on and on.
You said "Canadians do not seek to change your gun laws, so why would you comment on ours? As a Canadian I am deeply resentful when an American refers to us as "totalitarian" simply because we have a different gun culture."
We are interested in what happens in Canada because the Power Elite will soon be using it as an example of what should be done to America. I'm sorry if I insulted you about referring to Canada as Totalitarian. I don't believe that you or most other Canadians support totalitarianism, nor do most Americans. But the Power Elite who control your country, as well as mine, ARE totalitarian and we are likely to see their true colors in our lifetimes. I hope you are right and I am wrong, but everything that I have seen in 50+ years of living tells me that I'm right.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 19, 2000.
Something iteresting I received this morning:A Lifelong Democrat Has Had Enough by James Vanderhoef Mail Item to a Friend Info A Lifelong Democrat Has Had Enough Letter to Senator Barbara Boxer from James Vanderhoef
Dear Senator Boxer:
In the past, I have voted for you, for Senator Feinstein, and for Billy-Jeff/algore. In the future, I am afraid that this is going to be an extremely difficult proposition for me.
I consider myself to be a "liberal," in the context of the dictionary definition of the term: "...tending towards maximization of personal liberty..." I support the rights of "gay" citizens, the right of women to "choose," consider any form of racism to be un-American, and would proudly call myself a "civil libertarian." I come from a family of strong Union supporters. My father was a member of (first) the UMW and later the IBEW.
Unlike the millions who switched affiliation (the last time you folks put your feet firmly in mouth), I was never a "Reagan Democrat," possibly due to the fact that while I was working my way through University, Mr. Reagan was calling me a "...bum..." Nobody likes to be called names, especially by the officials they elect to represent and serve their interests.
It seems to me there is a new class of citizens who are being unjustly vilified for political gain -- law-abiding firearms owners. Let's think about it! -- these people are your neighbors, your relatives, military veterans, retired (and active) police officers, physicians, lawyers, farmers, ranchers, women who live alone -- ordinary citizens who choose to exercise their inalienable right of self-defense.
However, if we are to believe the pronouncements issuing from certain politicians, various special-interest groups, and the daily "spin" in the mass-media (which, if it ever was "liberal" is now CORPORATE), these same good citizens are really a bunch of unconscionable baby-murderers. I think not. . .
Anyone with a heart feels for those whose lives have been forever altered by seemingly random acts of violence, but consider -- historically, before the passage of "Prohibition," there was no appreciable "Organized Crime" in America. "Banning" anything leads only to opportunities for criminals to profit. If anything, it is the wrong-headed "War On Drugs," and the truly OBSCENE amounts of money to be made in the drugs trade that has led to the "arms race" on the streets, massive corruption both at home and abroad, and the shootings and killings that have followed from this. (It might be noted here that Senator Dianne Feinstein, before it became widely publicized, held a "concealed weapons permit" and Nancy Reagan was known to carry a "little bitty gun" in her purse, "just in case.")
In My Humble Opinion -- the Democrats are embarking on a very slippery slope with their knee-jerk "unconditional" support of whatever dimwitted legislation is proposed under the name of "gun control." I know you have already heard most of the arguments, and I do not suppose myself able to surpass others who have failed to convince you--but I must ask:
1) You swore an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. What about (the highest Law of the Land) the Bill of Rights? What about the Second Amendment? I have (also) heard the arguments about the "militia" being the National Guard, or some such institution -- and am similarly NOT convinced. JUST WHOM DO YOU SUPPOSE "THE PEOPLE" TO BE? JUST WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU (and Senator Feinstein, and Billy-Jeff/algore) NOT UNDERSTAND? (Hint: It's not about "hunting" -- You cannot "license" an inalienable RIGHT.)
2) Nearly everyone has seen the now-famous photo of the Federal Agent seizing Elian Gonzalez. The Officer in question is carrying a fully-automatic 9mm (German-made) MACHINE GUN. Such a firearm is totally illegal for any "ordinary" citizen to own -- yet here it is on Page One, being wielded by a Federal official (whose finger, I noted, was OUTSIDE the trigger-guard, reflecting at least some good training.) But -- how can you "trust" THIS person with such a weapon, when you do not "trust" THE PEOPLE? This is a first step on the road to a POLICE STATE, wherein (in the words of George Orwell) "Some animals are MORE EQUAL than others."
3) If (best estimates available) there are some 80+ million legal firearms owners in America -- if (roughly) half of them are Democrats -- and if (so far) you have only managed to alienate a quarter of them -- that is 10 million voters! Can the Democrats afford such a potential loss of votes? I don't think so. .
I truly DO NOT wish to become a "one-issue" voter -- I am equally appalled by some of the "Neanderthaler" candidates proposed for my consideration by groups such as the NRA, but -- I TELL YOU THREE TIMES -- this attack by attrition on the Bill of Rights in the name of "gun control" is ill-considered, and ultimately a losing proposition. I don't think I have ever voted for a Republican candidate in my life. Please, don't make me start now. . .
Sincerely,
James Vanderhoef
Further comments from prominent Democrats:
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible." [Senator Hubert H. ("Mr. Liberal") Humphrey]
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." [John F. Kennedy]
"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, unless you don't teach them to read, and then you can fool them anytime you want." [Max Headroom]
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 19, 2000.
All this talk of putting gun rights up for popular vote reminds me that every couple of years, some college or university does a public opinion survey, either telephone or person in the street type, and asks if people should have the right to say whatever they want, to write whatever they want, to stop the police from searching houses for drugs without warrants, etc. without telling people these things ar ein the Constitution. And almost every time (if I can find the link again I'll post it here) a depressing majority disagrees with almost every right guaranteed by the first Ten Amendments.Just for the record, again referring to all the talk of crime and gun ownership -- Vermont allows any citizen without a felony conviction to carry concealed without a permit. Vermont has had one of the lowest crime rates in the country since stats began. It also has one of the most liberal electorates, consistently sending a Socialist to congress for years. go figure.
-- Writer (writer@workinginmedia.com), May 19, 2000.
Matters of Constitutional consequence are not subject to popular vote in our scheme of government.
-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 19, 2000.
That doesn't seem to bother Klintoon and his minions!This weekend I will unfortunately be venturing back into the People's Republik of Kalifornia. It's ironic that as I enter a higher crime area, I must lock up my weapon and put it in the trunk sans ammunition, unless I want to risk jail time and a heavy fines. Here in my state, with much less violent crime, I am allowed to carry it ready for use, in the unlikely event I might need it. In Kalifornia only the bad guys can carry guns.
-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 19, 2000.
"As I said in reply to Johnny, "no one is trying to tell you how to run your country". However, your's and his opinions don't reflect the views of all Canadians, either."There is of course a small minority of Canadians who seek to emulate the US in gun-death totals, but they are a small minority indeed.
-- Toronto Bob (toronto@bob.ca), May 20, 2000.
Gun ownership down, gun crime up:Edmonton Journal Thursday 20 January 2000. By Michael Brown OD
Through the summer of 1997, the owners of large-calibre handguns in Britain were forced to surrender their guns to the government. During February of 1998, owners of small-calibre handguns were compelled to do the same.
The day before this "hand-in" concluded, junior Home Office Minister Alan Michael preened that Britain was now free of civilian handguns. "I believe (the hand-in) has put a firm brake on the development of a dangerous gun culture in the UK." Of course, it had done no such thing. The truly dangerous gun culture in the UK, viz., the criminal gun culture - wasn't affected a whit.
Michael primped that "a total ban reduces (the) risk...(of) legally held handguns falling into the wrong hands." While perhaps true in some completely theoretical, otherworldly sense, this is entirely irrelevant. What matters to public safety is that no drug dealer, no mob enforcer, not even a single armed robber was denied a gun by the hand-in. The confiscation may have prevented criminals from stealing the tools of their trade, but it hardly made it impossible for them to acquire guns.
Last Sunday, the Times of London revealed just how available guns are to criminals. "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain," the Times reported, which has led to a startling rise "in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions," as well as more mundane gun crimes such as corner store hold-ups and muggings.
In the first year after the surrender of civilian handguns, armed crime in Britain rose 10 per cent. It went up not down and just as important, its composition is changing. Where as in the early 1990s, one-third of gun murders in Britain were committed with handguns, now nearly two-thirds are. (There has been a similar change in Canada, too. Handguns were used until recently in about one-third of murders, but are now used in nearly 60 per cent.)
A buy-back of firearms in Australia the same year had the same effect as Britain's hand-in: Gun crimes soared in the 12 months that followed, including categories of crime that had been declining for two decades.
The most drastic gun control possible - outright confiscation - could not reduce crime or improve public safety, as its advocates had promised, because, as gun owners had predicted, criminals refused to participate in it. Indeed, the controls might even have emboldened criminals to commit more crimes. Why not? If they could count on their victims being unarmed, the risk inherent in their "work" went down while the potential rewards went up.
Has any of this deterred Britain's anti-gun politicians or special interest groups? Of course not. There was never any logic in their arguments, just a black mix of snobbery, ignorance, emotion, fear and irrationality. So they certainly are not going to be deflected by a few inconvenient facts - or a few thousand crimes.
Britain's anti-gun activists are now claiming the confiscation was never about reducing crime. In the Times piece on Sunday, unnamed Home Office officials insisted the hand-in was always only about making Britain's homes safer and keeping stolen handguns from making their way onto the streets.
Despite reams of newsprint full of earlier assurances from them that the hand-in would significantly reduce murder, assault, robbery, and so on, the anti-gunners in and outside the British government, like some minor functionaries at Orwell's Ministry of Truth, have wiped clean their memories of any such statements.
The Manchester Guardian, on January 14th, laments the fact that their city is being called "Gunchester". Police sources were quoted as saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young criminals on the street. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons and the generally unarmed British police say that they risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine guns[not that they actually have].
The Sunday Express sent a team of reporters out to investigate the problem and their story of June 20, 1999 said, "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual."
The government is expected to respond by further tightening the laws on weapons of all sorts. Additional regulations controlling knives and air guns are said to be in the works, although this might be likened to beating a dead horse. The very act of armed self- defence is already punishable by law. That right has been handed over to the government in return for a promise of protection.
Perhaps motor vehicles need to be more heavily regulated as well. According to a commercial security report titled "New Wave in Retail Crime", British bandits are using vehicles to smash storefronts in a type of crime called "ram raiding", which would be impractical if shopkeepers had the option of arming themselves. The report states that, "Many retailers have actually gone out of business because of the repeated attacks on their premises."
This recent rise in crime is part of an upward trend that correlates well with the gradual tightening of gun control over the last several decades. The relationship between increasing gun control and rising crime is well documented in a scholarly 1999 report by Olsen and Kopel, "All the Way Down the Slippery Slope - Gun Prohibition in England".
The traditional view of England as a low crime society has also been seriously damaged by the 1998 study titled, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales", which is available from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. This report concludes that English crime rates in the period from 1981 to 1996 were actually higher than in the United States due to differences in the way crimes are reported.
The negative result from gun control laws should not surprise us. American cities have had similar counterproductive results whenever gun control has been implemented locally. Reports from Australia are similar. It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their right to self- defence in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature.
Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control goes only one way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right to armed self-defence.
The same is happening in Canada. As the cost of a national registry of all firearms has spiraled out of sight, and as registration has fallen further and further behind, the Liberal government has talked less and less about reducing crime, more and more about creating "a culture of safety." If total confiscation of firearms cannot cut crime, what possible use will a registry be?
Even the one "fact" which the Liberals use to prove their registry's worth turns out to be, shall we say, less than the full picture. For months now, the Liberals have boasted that their registry has in one year refused more firearms licenses than the pre-registry licensing system did in the previous five years. It's simply not true.
Robert Paddon of the BC Wildlife Federation recently scoured the five RCMP annual firearms reports for the period involved, and found 2,326 licenses had been refused then versus the 578 the Liberals claim to have rejected in 1999. Moreover, not only had more licenses been rejected, they had been rejected at a rate almost three times higher than under the current registry; eight out of every 1,000 versus just three out of 1,000 under the new registry.
If, as the Liberals insist, licence rejections make Canada safer, then their registry is making the country less safe, not more.
-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 20, 2000.
Fatal Gun Accidents Drop in the US:Reflecting the value of safety efforts by industry, the National Rifle Association and many volunteer groups, a report by the National Safety Council (NSC) shows accidental firearms fatalities reached an all-time low of 900 in 1998, the fewest fatal accidents since such record keeping began in 1903. Fatal gun accidents have been declining for many years, but this was the first time the national total dropped below 1,000. The 900 figure for 1998 represents a decline of 18%, from the previous year, a decline of 40% for the 10-year period 1989 to 1998, and a decline of 65% since 1974 when 2,513 fatal firearms accidents occurred. There was a 41% drop in non-fatal injuries treated in emergency departments from 1993 to 1997.
The National Safety Council tracks unintentional injuries and deaths from a variety of causes. The 900 accidental firearms-related fatalities reported by the NSC for 1998 compare with 41,200 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents, 16,600 in falls, 4,100 by drowning, 3,700 due to fire or burns, 3,200 due to choking, and 9,400 from poisoning, in the same year. Firearms-related deaths in the home are at a historic low, as well. Of the total number of accidental fatalities attributed to firearms in 1998, 700 of these occurred in the home, a decline of 12.5% from the previous year.
Taken from The New Gun Week, January 2000 edition.
Lightning Strikes:
I saw on TV the other night that over 300 people are struck by lightning each year in North America. Our federal government has spent in excess of 300 million dollars on a scheme to prevent gun deaths which total less than the number of people struck by lightning.
Last night on CBC (2/2/00), in the early news report, "Hon" Jane Stewart's financial excesses were first described as a few million dollars then next referred to as a billion dollars which in fact is supposed to be $3 billion. The first priority in this country should be to close the CBC, which remains the propaganda organ for a crooked federal government.
-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 20, 2000.
RESPONSIBLE FIREARM OWNERS OF ONTARIOTHE POLICE AGAINST BILL C-68?
We have heard ad nauseam that the rank and file police are against Bill C-68. Yet whenever the Canadian Police Association gets a chance to vote to rescind their support for it, they always come down on the side of the Firearms Act. It would appear that John Gayder, website: http://www.vaxxine.com/scon/isguncon.htm and a few other policemen with balls enough to stand up to their establishment have stuck their necks out in favour of truth and the public interest. The recreational firearms community appreciates their efforts and wishes them the best.
Here are a few statements from Time magazine of December 20, 1999 about the Columbine shooting:
Why hadnt anyone stopped them yet? because of the open line, the 911 dispatcher knew for certain for seven long minutes that the gunmen were there in the library and were shooting fellow students. At that early stage, only about a dozen cops had arrived . They could have charged in with their handguns but their training and orders from their commander told them to secure the perimeter so the shooters couldnt escape. ..
Most people watching the live television coverage (of the Columbine shooting) that day saw . nearly 800 police officers who would eventually mass outside the high school. SWAT team members who stood outside for hours, while as far as everyone knew at the time, the gunmen were holding kids hostage inside. When 500 officers go to a battle zone and not one comes away with a scratch, then somethings wrong, charges Dale Todd, whose son was wounded inside the school. I expected dead officers, crippled officers, disfigured officers not just children and teachers...
This criticism is like a punch in the gut says Terry Manwaring, who was the SWAT commander that day. We were prepared to die for those kids. As Manwaring was getting dressed in his bulletproof gear, he says he asked several kids to draw on notebook paper whatever they could remember of the layout of the sprawling, 23,000 sq.m school but the kids were so upset they were not even sure which way was north.
Evan Todd, 16, tells a different story. Wounded in the library, he waited until the killers moved on and then fled outside to safety. Evan, who is familiar with guns, says he immediately briefed a dozen police officers. I described it all to them the guns they were using, the ammo. I told them they could save lives[of the wounded still in the library if they moved right away]. They told me to calm down and take my frustrations elsewhere.
... So the officers treated it as a hostage situation, moving into the school far from where the killers entered. . And they moved very slowly and cautiously.
Dave Sanders had been shot in the upstairs hallway, running to warn peoplestudent Kevin Starkey called 911 and guided a second SWAT team to their location where 50 students hid with the wounded teacher. But it had taken too long. Though (the killers) had killed themselves three hours earlier the SWAT team .. [didnt].. reach Sanders until close to 3 p.m.
Compare the above with Coroner Teresa Z. Sourours report on the Ecole Polytechnique massacre:
While Marc Lepine was going around shooting at anything that moved, the police had received orders not to enter the university to try to put a stop to the carnage.
The police officers who were there were only given the green light to enter the Polytechnique 24 seconds after Car 31-7 announced that Marc Lepine had committed suicide on the third floor.
While innocent victims, left to fend for themselves, were falling under the bullets of a crazy shooter, the strategy of our police force called for the establishment of a "security perimeter", instead of authorizing an assault aimed at stopping the slaughter.
Coroner Teresa Z. Sourour, who was mandated to study the circumstances surrounding the tragic events at the Polytechnique said in the conclusion to her report,
"[translation] A deliberate choice has been made not to discuss the issue of gun control ...
However, it should be borne in mind that that Marc Lepine still had 60 bullets left when he decided to put an end to this terrible episode, at a time when he was in no danger, since no police assault was underway or evidently under consideration ..."
She ended by noting,
"[translation] The deficiencies found in the police and ambulance intervention require very serious consideration."
The inference we could draw from the two above episodes is that the police bureaucracy lobbies the government to deny the public the right to defend itself so that they could have a monopoly on protection. At the same time, when the situation arises that the public needs protection, the police make every effort to protect themselves from harm or injury and to hell with the public. After it is all over the public is treated to miles of yellow ribbons, swarms of police officers investigating the scene, verbose news interviews with police spokespersons and months of expensive investigations leading nowhere.
It is interesting to note that not even the police are safe from the duplicity of the police establishment. Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, England, wrote a very erudite book entitled "Firearms Control," as the result of studies and research done at the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology. In it he comes to some conclusions which would seem rather startling to those who support gun control as a panacea for eliminating violence in our society.
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."
Recently, Chief Inspector Greenwoods gun collection was confiscated by the British police to make the country safer.
And the public, duped by the illogical media assumptions that if there were no guns, there would be no domestic violence, no stabbings, no child molestation, no rape, no violence, blindly follow.
-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 20, 2000.
Responsible Firearm Owners of OntarioNov 1999 newsletter
Updated December 28,1999.
Gun Ownership and Crime
Incontrovertible proof that gun ownership is not related to crime lies in the following statistics per 100,000 population in the US :
YEAR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
G/owners 1905 1935 1965 2000 2040 2055 2010 1860 1695 1620 1595
Violent Crime 310 320 341 355 395 428 473 491 519 554 572
Robbery 44.5 50.0 54.9 59.8 64.8 62.3 65.4 71.2 88.7 103.2 112.5
Gun robbery 3.9 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.6 5.3 6.7 7.7 10.4 11.4 11.5
Gun ownership peaked in 1988 and had declined to lower than 1980 levels by 1993. During this time the rate of violent crime, robbery and gun robbery grew drastically in spite of the decrease in gun ownership. The feminist/socialist agenda to disarm the public uses the argument that accessibility of guns is the cause of all crime, including homicide and suicide. To do so, it denies the obvious truth that feminist, social mismanagement might be playing a major role in the gradual degradation of our society.
"It can be concluded from the continuing reports of the FBI and the Department of Justice that the areas of the country with the highest homicide rates have the strictest gun controls. It is estimated that 20% of American homicides are concentrated in four cities that have some of the most restrictive gun-control laws, with only 6% of the population - - New York, Washington DC, Chicago and Detroit."
"The Bartley-Fox law took effect in Massachusetts in 1975, legislating a mandatory one-year jail sentence for persons carrying handguns without a licence or owning other firearms - including BB guns - without a firearms owner ID card. When the B-F initiative became law, Massachusets was the 19th most violent state in the nation, and Boston was the 5th most violent city with over 500,000 population. By 1983 Massachusets had moved to the 11th most violent state and Boston captured the number one distinction. And between 1974 and 1983, gun-related assault rose 20% in Massachusets while it only rose 6% nationwide."
Despite all the sophisticated safety innovations, medical miracles and crusading campaigns, car crashes remain the leading cause of death in North America. The New England Journal of Medicine (Feb 13, 1997) reported that every 10 minutes a car crash takes the life of a child or young adult. Notice the emotional pitch by not including drunken adults. (Thank goodness the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, anti-gun crusader, Jerome Kassirer, has been fired). Car registration has done nothing to reduce or stop the carnage on our highways. Meanwhile, the Canadian government is going full speed ahead in the name of safety, to close down our shooting ranges which have been in operation for thirty or more years without a single accident or fatality.
Paramilitary armies (ERT or SWAT) seem to have become a growth industry in Canada, while in other countries, these same organizations currently kill thousands of civilians, the most recently reported cases being Kosovo and East Timor. Meanwhile our tax money is being spent for our armed forces to keep the peace in those countries while the governments responsible for the killings sit on United Nations committees trying to disarm victims the world over (including us).
Response to Coalition for Gun Control
Re "Letter to the Editor," by Wendy Cukier (Aug 10). Ms. Cukier has difficulty in telling violent criminals from hunters or target shooters. Urban Canada (e.g., Toronto or Vancouver) has a higher homicide rate -- with or without firearms -- than does rural Canada. Indeed, violent crime of all kinds is more frequent in urban Canada. Unsurprisingly, more people in rural Canada own firearms. If firearms are so dangerous, then why is there more criminal violence in urban Canada?
Firearms can be used to protect as well as to hurt people. Those who live in the bush use guns, not jingling bells, to frighten off bears. The woman who deters a rapist by pointing her handgun at him is safer than someone who must beg for mercy. A firearm need not be fired to protect you. Ms. Cukier criticizes my published research where I've found that Canadians use firearms to protect themselves between 62,000 and 80,000 times per year. This study was published in The Journal of Criminal Justice (Mauser 1996). My estimate is based on three separate representative surveys of the Canadian public, not a single survey as she claimed. These surveys were professionally conducted and used standard survey research methodology. One of these surveys was sponsored by the Canadian government; all found very similar results.
A full description is available from the Mackenzie Institute in Toronto (Mauser and Buckner 1997). Telephone surveys are not without problems, but they are used successfully by Angus Reid and Canadian Facts. Over 18 surveys have found results similar to mine in both the U.S. and Canada. Even researchers who are strong opponents of firearm ownership have found similar results. (Cook and Ludwig, 1996)...... Gary Mauser.
Armed and Female Quotes of the Day
"In 1976, the year before the law took effect, Washington DC was the seventh most violent city.....in the nation. Six years later it had moved into first place as its violent crime rate increased 48%. ....Then police chief Turner remarked in a speech "What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from getting guns? Absolutely nothing.""
"Again we see that the most severe form of gun control - prohibition - does nothing to control the handgun in the hands of the criminals. It controls law abiding citizens...but allows crime to escalate."
"...the town of Kenesaw, Georgia, not far from Atlanta, passed a law in 1981 that required every household to have a working firearm and suitable ammunition. Between 1981 and 1982 there was a 74% drop in violent crime and burglaries with further decreases in 1983 and 1984."
"In Highland Park, Michigan, police offered a highly publicized gun-defense training program for retail merchants. Armed robberies decreased from 80 during the four months prior to the firearms training to zero in the four months after the training."
"In Detroit, an association of grocery store owners instituted a firearms training course for its members. The program received extensive publicity through denunciations of it by the chief of police.....Grocery robberies decreased by 90%"
"...in Orlando, rape fell 88% the year following a well publicized gun-defense course attended by more than 6,000 of the city's female residents."
GUNS SAVE LIVES
RESPONSIBLE FIREARM OWNERS OF ONTARIO e-mail: jsobrian@pipcom.com URL:http://www.pipcom.com/~jsobrian/index.html
-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 20, 2000.