How many Cops can be hired for $2 billion?

How many crimes have been solved or prevented by the gun registry’s use of $2 billion?

How does harassing law abiding people stop criminals?

How does disarming the good people make them safer from the bad people? Especially when the bad people won’t disarm.

The Liberal’s non-solutions are always to spend money, harass the law abiding (even better if they’re rural tories,) create lots of government jobs and accomplish nothing. Afer all, every problem that they actually solved would no longer be able to be used as a campaign promise! For an example: You can’t promise to fix health care if it’s already fixed. So keep it broke and be the perpetual saviors of health. It works great – so long as everything is always broken.

For rural people, I don’t think guns are necessarily a “culture” nor are they particularly a big deal. Rural people have a use for guns, be it hunting or protecting livestock, not to mention “self-defence”—an under-rated virtue in Canada. I really don’t think ordinary people, be they rural or urban, spend a heck of a lot of time thinking or conversing about guns; they have them, they use them, so what. In contrast, these urban thugs causing the increase in violent crime rates love their guns, guns are very much an ego booster and status symbol for them. And I think there is something to be said for the commonality of guns, as is the case in rural areas, making them less significant and less of a status symbol.

What bugs me the most about Canada’s gun laws is the unthinkingness and lack of nuance that informs them. Now your wife would likely know better than I, but I don’t think the federal government is being particularly vindictive towards law abiding gun owners because they are afraid gun owners are the only ones that can oppose their authority—although this may very well be the case. I think the more persuasive explanation is that, as you mention, the federal Liberals are playing to a certain constituency of illthinking voters and are informed by an illthought roster of ideologically bent academics. And again, as you mention, it is the abdication of individual responsibility in favour of the “nanny” state — what I have called the paternal state, or others would call statism — that is the bias the Liberals are playing towards.

But this is not an irreconcilable problem, just a difficult one to fix. What interested me in this topic in the first place was the “good neighbour” gunned down in Toronto, the explanation by police there that this tragedy was indicative of “gun culture”—little emphasis on the individual thug. So I have here tried to express my frustration that this explanation is thoroughly inadequate.

This “good neighbour” was a hero of sorts; a community leader with a large family, one with a vested interest is living with his family and friends in a safe community. However, what distinguished him as a “good neighbour” was that he possessed the courage to stand-up, on his own two feet, against gang violence and gun related crimes. Admittedly, I don’t know much about his political views and for all I know he might have been beating the drums against “gun culture”, but I have to admit he was indeed a great man! He saw wrongs in the world, knew that no one else would get to the heart of those wrongs, and so decided to lead his community in taking a stand against crime. For this stand he paid with his life!

If you want a solution to the “nanny” state bias, to an expectation of dependency on the state, the reality is that Canada needs more guys like this good neighbour. Canada needs people to wake up to common sense, to stop shirking responsibility, to stop accepting lame vacuous explanations from police forces for the crimes in their communities.

As for gun control being part of this problem, Canada’s stringent approach has made guns far too exceptional. If more ordinary people possessed them, gangs might not be so prolific. Thugs would not get the same status from possessing a gun, and the presence of guns in ordinary homes signals a certain willingness to defend those homes. It seems pretty intuitive that solving crime starts in the community, not with the police—communities are ulimately responsible for their own welfare.

The police in Toronto should be ashamed of how they explained away this tragedy as a result of “guns”, rather than the result of warped individual who had made bad choices in life. Murder is committed by murderers, not their weapons, or tools of the trade!

Back in 98 when the implimentation was stalled, it was admitted the gun laws were not to control crime but to control civilians…to deviously disarm them with a spider’s web of charter violating regualtion and taxation..then when firearms owners numbers were sufficiently low ebnough through people dropping out due to over regulation and costs and criminal indemnity, they will start banning one class of guns at a time …without confiscation….this was the sole purpose of having a registry….the gun registry is a lost leader…a diversion…the real danger is in the licencing…there is a list of every gun owner ( future subversive) in Canada….this is all they need. My wife even saw samples of the letters the justice dept. lawyers were crafting to send to gun owners demanding surrender of their guns in certain classes of firearms.

The purpose for this trance-like liberal drive for covert civilian disarmament lies in the core of utopian global socialism and was enunciated by senataor Carstairs. The new Firearms Act was intended, from the outset, to be integral to the liberal party’s party’s plans to: “socially re-engineer Canada.” As she let slip at Community Legal Education Associations conference in January 1996.

Guns are favored by rural males, western canadian culture and are associated with self-reliance,….independence from the flods of the nanny state’s skirts and are therefore contrary to the Liberal Party’s desire for a feminized and dependent nation.

The secondary motive for registration is simply a crass political calculation that there are more urban female votes to be gained by attacking “masculine” culture (gun culture) than there are liberal rural male votes to be lost. MSM polling of Canadian gun-control supporters during the gun control/registry debate repeatedly showed them to be starkley ignorant of Canada’s existant strict gun-control laws. When pressed to give accountable, accurate answers the main gun registry civilian lobbyists; Heidi Rathjen, Wendy Cukier and Christina DeVilliers (note the feminist-activist content here. note also their funding was federal through back door revenue washing)admitted their main motive for wanting more gun control is not the expectation that the law will make people safer from crime and criminals or mad men like Lepine, but their desire to express in law their antipathy for “the gun culture”(read: male agression and “macho” values).They have all ( including Rock, MacLellan and Chretien) admitted the law will not deter crime or criminals……then they leave the rest blank fo us to speculate on. If 2 billion is being spent not to control crime and criminals then WHAT, exactly, is it accomplishing. Well, I see it as a contingency tool that government has installed to deal with potential civil disobedience to some profound social engineering they have planned in the future.

In short, Canadian gun control is a sort of slow-motion hate crime, perpetrated by the government. The real purpose is to repress a minority whom the government dislikes. The registry is the ultimate tool to pull the pin on ideological ( armed) civilian opposition if it ever comes to this…but just the same Ottawa Liberals fear armed civilians who have not embraced nanny state dependency so they have put this in place.

“

I have provided a case against stringent gun control, would you mind providing the case for it? It seems to me that Canada’s gun laws lack sufficient rationale to justify such aggressive constricting of the liberty of law abiding citizens to own guns. I’m not saying we don’t need gun laws, I’m saying that our current gun laws are irresponsible. They don’t sufficiently address personal responsibility, they only serve to demonize guns. It seems to me that murder is murder, marginally made easier whether you use a gun or not. I fail to see how pegging responsibility for murder on the weapon rather than the assailant addresses the problem. Guns are part of the problem in Toronto, that is if you consider thrugs to be rational actors reacting to them and to the current gun law regime. But guns are not inherently bad, they can serve the useful purpose of self-defense—so good guys do have a reason to have them. There is also something to be said for stringent regulation growing the black market and making it harder for law abiding citizens to possess guns. It seems to me that stringent gun laws only increase the “status symbol” quality of a gun for a thug—regular people don’t generally possess them under such a regime. If thugs know that regular people don’t generally possess guns, guns they can use to fight back with, then those regular people become easier targets for them—and thugs know this.

Please, show us your stuff Mr. McClelland.