Sunday, August 9, 2009

Response to From My Cold Dead Hands Comment...

Well, I must admit a bit of shocking surprise when I logged on today and saw that my last post had generated quite a few comments. I must say I'm a tad disappointed that there were mostly comments that objected to the view I presented, as I would have liked at least one agreement, but I guess that's how things go sometimes.

Many of the commentators put forward their own statistics, links and opinions and I thank them for that. I have been going through the information they've provided and I feel that I should comment slightly on it.

I do not wish for this blog to become a 'they said, I said' response format, so I hope that I can say what needs to be said in this post and we can put the issue to rest on the blog...At least until something comes up in the news again to warrant further discussion.

Since there are quite a few people to respond to, I shall break this down in a person-by-person response. This does mean though that I may repeat myself.

Anonymous:
I looked into your link, and was unable to find the complete text you have pasted. The one argument I can make against it, of course, is that the age of the statistics is biased towards a time when the UK was indeed going through dangerous spikes. Links to British Government publications, which can be found below, often cite 1995 as being a particularly bad time.

Also, the US figure is only ESTIMATED. This provides a problem as, from my own experience, estimates usually turn out to be quite wrong and way off the mark.

Jayde:

I appreciate your linking to the Home Office website with the English Government, but I must point out that your statistics are little off. You provided a link for the 2006-2007 year, which is in contrast to the link I provided detailing 2008. The following link: Crime in England and Wales 2008/09; provides a picture that shows violent crime on the decline.

According to the report, found on page 7/12, weapons were only used 21% of the time in violent crimes; which equals to about one in five violent crimes. To further compound the matter, firearms were only used in 1% of those violent crimes, while overall firearms use by criminals fell 17% in 2008/09 as compared to 2007/08.

Offenses resulting in injury also fell 47% in the country. The report cites the reduction of imitation weapons as a major contributing factor in this number. (For those who don't know, imitation weapons refer to replicas which can and have been converted into live fire weapons. More information can be found here: 500,000 fake guns a year reach Britain|News|This is London)

In addition, in regards to your original source, I would point out that the highest violent crime rate according to the source was domestic crime; so things such as spousal and child abuse, rather than breaking and entering.

Sadly, I cannot comment on the link provided by you in regards to England and Scotland being dubbed more dangerous than Northern Ireland, because the link did not work. I attempted to find the source myself on the UN Crime and Justice website, but was unable to do so.

You ended your comment mentioning that the RCMP says they don't really use the registry and believe that it should be abolished. I was unable to find a link to support your comment, but I was able to find this: Winnipeg Free Press: Canadian Police Want to Keep Gun Registry Going.

The article also ends on a note I feel should be presented here, since you mentioned the United States. The California Attorney General Report on Firearms concluded that firearms within the state were used far more often by males to kill females and that firearms were rarely used against criminals or stop crimes; rather they inflicted harm on the people the firearm was meant to protect.

I would like to see a source for your ending argument, about the police wanting the registry abolished, because all I can find on my own is overwhelming support within the police community for the continuation of the registry.

Michael:

Sadly, I didn't see any sources to back up your arguments. However, I shall respond to them as best I can and work with the assumption that somewhere they are possibly recorded as fact.

I do thank you for providing a picture of use for a semi-automatic weapon, as I likely would not have considered the need for a follow-up shot on an animal before it runs off into the wild. However, I suppose I could argue, that the purpose of hunting (other than enjoyment or food) would be to become a better hunter, and develop the ability to kill an animal with a single shot.

After all, a single bullet would be more humane to the animal than a burst fire of five or so tearing through them. I would also argue that hunters who use longbows and other varieties of archery equipment could tell you all about the value of a 'good first blow' rather than just firing and hoping to finish the animal off.

As for your objections to my other arguments; in regards to saying that I am suggesting passivity over objectivity, I do not believe so. A person does indeed have a right to defend themselves from a person who is seeking to do harm to them. John Stuart Mill, a political philosopher, would suggest that the harm principle comes into play.

That we are able to do what we need to do in that it prevents a greater harm from occurring to ourselves. However, Canadian law would look on that within reason. You cite that we have a means to protect ourselves in regards to the claim of 'self-defense'. But, self-defense is not black and white, it is a very grey area.

For example, if a person breaks into your home with a baseball bat as their weapon and you proceed to shoot them on sight...Well, your self-defense trial would be over shortly and you would go to prison. The fact of the matter is, that we do not allow the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality.

A person with a baseball bat poses no actual harm to a person armed with a gun, and as such, you stepped outside of your legal limits when you fired the weapon as you were in no physical danger and were not actually defending yourselves.

It is the same with the RCMP. I've spent some time touring detachments and have had relatives and friends within the RCMP, and they'll tell you all about the conflict 'wheel' that they use. That if a person is harmed with this, they can respond with that. The first response is not to go to the gun, but other things such as pepper spray or a tazer or a baton.

Self-defense is necessary when dealing with someone who is going to harm you or your loved ones, but if we hold our police to a standard of reasonable action, then we must adhere to it ourselves.

I suppose you'd ask well, what if they have a gun instead of a baseball bat? Well, that's a more difficult situation. Some would say that just the threat of you shooting back would be enough to get someone to submit, while others would say no you need to shoot first. But again, this can fall back to the problem with self-defense.

After all, that air gun they might have been carrying posed no harm and you shot them outside of your legal right to do so.

You also mentioned that areas with higher gun ownership see lower amounts of violent crimes. You cite the United States, and say they have low rape, home invasion and assault rates. You do not provide statistics, so I suppose it's my job.

Using the American Department of Justice website, which unfortunately only had this data up to 2005, there were 15,687 homicides (which can be broken down in to categories such as assault) throughout the United States. Unsurprisingly, guns and firearms were often the highest percentage in relation to these crimes.

You can look for yourself here: Bureau of Justice

Also according to the Bureau, from 2007 results found here; throughout the United States there was:
1,408,337 total violent crimes
16,929 murders and non-negligent manslaughter
90,427 forcible rape
445,125 robberies
885,856 aggravated assaults

Looking at those numbers, Assault/Rape/Robberies, your argument that the US sees less of these crimes seems to be a moot point.

Of course, I'd welcome any statistics you can bring that would counter these.

You also argue that because I don't see a logical use for a gun outside of hunting, that I'm naive in some way. Perhaps, in some ways I am, I can admit that. You suggest that others don't share my lifestyle and wouldn't agree with me. Well, that is where you might be wrong.

Going back to the Winnipeg Free Press article, in 2001 61% of Canadians wanted stricter gun laws. While 63% favoured outlawing gun ownership completely for private citizens. Now, I'm not completely against gun ownership so I'm not in that 63%; but I would say I am in the 61% that want stricter laws.

As such, given the polls findings, I'd say there are quite a few out there who seemingly share my 'life style', as you put it, and think something more needs to be done and that there is no use for guns outside of hunting and sport shooting.

You also challenge my definition of the Militia, well, here's some thanks to Dictionary.com:
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

When the Second Amendment would have been written, the definition of a militia would have followed 1 - 3. Furthermore, the concept comes from a time when all able bodied men would be required to help defend the country/King from invasion and other threats.

But if you literally read the Second Amendment as written, all it does is guarantee the right of a person to own a gun to defend the nation. It does not give them the right to use it as self-defense, nor even for hunting, rather it simply states that for the purpose of defending the nation all able bodied men exist within the militia of the United States and can carry a gun for that purpose.

So, while it gives them the gun, it doesn't give them the right to use it outside of the defense of their country...If you want to squabble over definitions, that is.

Anonymous:

You stated Vermont, so allow me to use the Bureau of Justice to provide the same facts I did above.

In Vermont alone, there was:
772 violent crimes
12 murders/non-negligent manslaughter
123 forcible rape
80 robbery
557 aggravated assaults

So, while people might be carrying concealed weapons; 10% of the population according to your undocumented claim, it doesn't seem to be doing much to stop crime rates. Considering the high assault rate and the higher rape rate, it would seem that the fear of being shot is not considered at all by the people committing these crimes.

Rishi Maharaj:

As I noted in my response to Michael, self-defense is a tricky issue and one that is often to easily bandied about as a reason for gun ownership. I do appreciate that you did indeed reference that self-defense requires that the action is necessary, which is often a caveat that people leave out when they make the self-defense claim.

You too reference Vermont, and I suggest you read the above.

Now, you do make a very compelling argument from a standpoint. That if self-defense is a right, how can you say that the tools of self-defense should not be a right? I must admit, I've never quite heard that argument before...

But, I must also admit that I am not overly swayed by it. You assert that governments exist to secure fundamental human rights, not legalize them or enshrine them. You balance this argument by referring to abortion and how while not decriminalized, was often impossible for a woman to get done properly back in the day.

From a philosophical standpoint, your argument is quite sound.

However, in practical terms, I don't think it is. Governments do protect basic human rights, which is why we have them. But they are required to do one important thing that people often forget: Governments protect us from ourselves.

For example, going back to good old John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian principle would suggest that drug laws are useless. After all, a person is only harming themselves through drug use and therefore should be allowed under philosophical principle to use drugs to their hearts content.

As such, since humans have a basic right to do what they wish with their own body, your argument would suggest that governments have no right to prevent a person from using drugs. The same goes with a woman or man who decided to turn to prostitution as a career, since it is their right to do what they wish with their body.

Now, I am not saying that you support these things. What I am saying is that your argument must protect them, not just gun rights, otherwise it is a hypocritical argument and is not actually sound in either reality or philosophy.

To the point, governments exist to place limits. If a person could sit back and do drugs all day while contributing nothing to society, they likely could, under a Millian principle and your argument. Government prevents that through the use of laws against drug use, the purchase of drugs, and the very act of being intoxicated or high while in public.

The same is true of gun laws. A person could, under no gun laws, decide that they want to shoot parking metres. Or that they want to jump through the air whilst firing two guns just because it looks cool, while not actually shooting at anything.

Laws are in place to prevent this from happening, such as regulations about where and when a gun can be fired to laws that prevent destruction of public property. Government is not the evil monster that some people make it out to be, it is actually here to improve our lives and make life just a little bit better for all of us.

As such, going back to the key of your argument, access to guns is not the ONLY means of self-defense available to people. You make it sound as though guns are the only option of self-defense, which they are not, and as such do not constitute the sole tools of a basic right.

You end your comment on a question, posing about why criminals do not target or take on police officers or attack police stations. To an extent, you're right. The idea of storming a building full of armed people is not the greatest idea.

But you also forget to mention that there are more deterrents than guns. Anything worth stealing in a police station is tightly guarded and locked up, which means that a criminal would need to get keys or access codes to get anything of value. So, while armed cops might be somewhat of a deterrent, the idea of not getting anything easily is also there.

Secondly, and more importantly to my point, normal citizens do not really take the same precaution as cops do in regards to locking things up. How many of us have safes where we store our most valued objects? Probably not that many.

But how many of us have laptops worth hundreds of dollars? Televisions worth more? Jewelry, artwork, etc, etc, etc...Luxury items that we don't lock away every night, but leave comfortably sitting in their place until we replace them or move; and all we secure them with is a locked door and window.

Criminals may not be suicidal, as you said, but they aren't stupid either. The easier target will always be the average citizen's house, as opposed to a police station, regardless of how many guns the homeowner has.

And if you truly want criminals to reconsider a life of crime, then support a political party that addresses the key problems of poverty, social programs, and other social problems that force people into a life crime. Crime is a bit like a wart that way, you have to treat the root not the surface if you want it to go away.

Anonymous:

I do appreciate the history you've put into your post, and I do feel that I've addressed those concerns as time as gone by with the previous responses, but there are two things I must address.

First, you mention how the governments seem to be turning their back on this 1000 year old legislation. Think about that for a moment. Government is like an organism, it evolves and it changes to suit the times. A 1000 year old document is unlikely to apply to our times, given the rapid advances in technology.

For example, if the legislation was written when swords were the predominant weapon, then there would be a right to bear swords and people would be fighting over that today. As for guns, guns have changed a lot in the last 1000 years.

We've gone from muskets and saltpeter weapons, to guns that are rapid fire and able to inflict a great deal more damage than those in the past. After all, why should there be a law against having a gun you can fire once that takes 10 minutes to reload? There isn't much worry about that if the person misses their first shot.

Laws and government change, it's a pure and simple fact. If they did not, they would stagnate and lead to the second point...

Secondly, you mused the idea that coups are always from the military. Can I ask you a personal question? When you get into your vehicle of choice, do you have one of those little yellow "Support our Troops" stickers/magnet?

If you do, how can say support our troops one moment...And then say that we need guns because our military might take over the country? Now, if you do not have one of those stickers, this point doesn't apply.

However, I do feel the need to point out the general fear mongering. When you've seen a military coup, who is it usually against? Some dictator or self-important ruler who has gone beyond his or her power and is changing the nation in ways that harm and change the nation in ways that are unfavourable.

Now, some of you will say, there are documented cases of democracies being overthrown by military coups...Burma being such an example. In most of those cases, we see a major difference between those armies and ours.

In addition to potential outside political pressure for the coup, armies in these countries often carry more prestige than Canadian Officers. Generals are given a lifestyle that they want to maintain and fear losing, after all, no one stays a General forever. As such, a coup is more about personal politics than it is about military vs democracy.

It is usually an ambitious person who seeks to keep the lifestyle they've become accustomed to and know that there is no other way to keep it than to seize power for themselves. I do not believe Canada is at risk for this kind of personality, namely for the fact that our generals are not given villas and servants and other perks that would drive someone to want to keep their power.

Not to mention a pretty good pension system for soldiers who retire from the forces, there is no motivation for a coup with Canada, and the mere suggestion of it is simply a weak tactic used to distract people from actual fact.

Dave:

As I've mentioned before, I am not preaching pacifism. Self-defense is something that everyone is entitled to, but what I am saying is that guns are not the only means of obtaining this defense. People seem to think that protection = gun, and that is simply not the case.

In addition to firearms, and the police, there are numerous other means of defense. Alarm systems, for example, are just as effective as warding off intruders into your home. My uncle and aunt had an alarm system for years while living in Saskatoon and never had any problem.

And even if they had, the alarm going off would cause an intruder to leave the premises before the police had shown up. There are always different courses of action to deal with the same problem, and I for one, do not believe that guns are the sole course.

Anonymous:

I may very well take you up on that offer to visit a gun range one of these days. As I noted in my original post and in this one, I am not for taking away guns from citizens but I do believe more has to be done to limit unnecessary firearms and ensure that guns are owned for a purpose.

I do appreciate your mentioning the historical and engineering aspect of firearms, and also appreciate that you approached the subject with an open mind. I do acknowledge that not everyone is going to agree with what I say on this blog, much like I won't agree with what others say on theirs, and it's nice to see that someone can read this blog, disagree with it, but still be courteous and respectful. So, thank you for that, and maybe (once I get everything in order), I'll see you one day at the gun range.

DaveC:

Your first link, which suggests Home Office numbers are deflated, may contain some truth but it also defuses the argument you're making. The number that was excluded from the official list referred to gun crimes that did not result in a gun being brandished, used as a blunt instrument, or fired. Rather, those gun crimes that didn't make the list were cases of illegally trafficking a weapon into Britain or not having the weapon registered. So, while gun crimes are slightly higher when those figures are added, it does not add to the overall number of violent gun crimes within Britain.

Your second link, however, is more alarming. It states that children as young as 12 are carrying guns in Britain, and that the 'shock' of this has worn off on the public.

Now, consider this for a moment, why are children carrying guns? Is it the example set at home? The glorification of them in media? Likely, it is a combination of both. The article does not make reference to where the children secured the guns, but I'd imagine that it is likely from home due to carelessness on the part of the parent who owns the weapon.

This of course, brings us to Canada. Gun ownership poses certain risks, especially when children are present within the household. As I mentioned before, from the Winnipeg Free Press article, the California Attorney General Report suggested that guns in the State harmed those they were meant to protect more than criminals.

I'm not saying that all gun owners are this irresponsible, but what I am saying is that some of them would be. No one is ever 100% responsible, to assume so would be a fallacy. So, in the case of children as young as 12 in Britain walking around with guns; it has to be a majority of these guns are coming from home where they were not secured properly by those who owned them.

There is, of course, a chance that some of these guns come from outside of the home. In those cases, it is not the fault of responsible gun owning parents. But the fact still remains, that gun ownership within the home could be responsible for younger children having this access to guns when the owners are irresponsible for the firearm's storage.

I wish I could say the rest of your comment was as eye opening, but sadly, you too strayed into the realm of fear mongering.

You list countries that turned on their citizens and took away their weapons and then slaughtered them, but you fail to mention that most of those countries were not a democratic state when this occurred.

And furthermore, to Germany, to include it on this list is a bit of a stretch. For all its own citizens it may have killed during the course of WWII, it was the toll on people outside of its borders that saw the worst of it. Polish citizens, Russian Soldiers, and numerous other NON-German citizens suffered under that regime, and simply having access to guns would not have stopped it.

Then you refer to our Former Prime Minister choking a man who got too close as proof of your argument as to why it could happen here in Canada.

Re-watching the video of the incident you mentioned, ask yourself, what would you have done? When the Prime Minister is walking through a crowd, it's sort of parted and he or she would stop here and there and shake hands and accept pats on the back as they walked by.

Now, come face to face with a protester who is directly in your path, and ask, what would you have done?

Keep in mind, that in 1995 (one year before Chretien had choked the protester) Andre Dallaire had broken in to 24 Sussex Drive, armed with a knife and intention to assassinate the then Prime Minister. So, of course, an unexpected person standing in a place where they shouldn't be standing could have been interpreted by the Prime Minister as a potential threat and he did, as many of you have advocated in comment, and undertook in self-defense.

As for the Second Amendment questions you raise, go back and look at my response to Michael to get my opinion on that and the definition of what defines a militia.

And while your last quote does make some sense about the outlawing of things driving them underground and making them a greater threat than what they are now; ask yourself if you hold this to be true of everything?

As I said in response to Rishi Maharaj, the argument is only sound provided that you apply it to everything. Obviously, as we've seen with drugs, laws have driven the trade underground and led to dangerous situations because of it. But the same is true of anything that has been outlawed, and if that is the case, then by using this argument you must agree to decriminalize everything outside of physical harm laws because we've just driven everything underground.

If you don't, then as I said, it is a hypocritical argument and does not serve to further your point.

But in direct regards to it; outlawing guns would not drive them underground. We've already seen an underground movement to bring guns into this country, despite the fact that they are legally available already. Is there a chance that outlawing them would cause this to inflate? Yes, there is a chance. But there is also a chance that outlawing them could increase public safety.

As I've said before, I do not support the outlawing of guns because there are practical uses for them. However guns that serve no practical use and just sit on the shelf collecting dust, waiting for the time when they may have to be used to defend my family, do not need to be in existence.

I am not challenging the ownership of firearms; what I am challenging is the necessity of them when a person does not use them for hunting or sport shooting, or any other form of actually using the firearm.

To state that a person should have one simply because they can, is to open the floodgates for more dangerous arguments that will simply make this world a little bit more dangerous.

25 comments:

Mr Kilroi said...

I take exception to the condescending tone of your responses.

I would point out that you misconstrued First, you mention how the governments seem to be turning their back on this 1000 year old legislation" It is not the age of the document but rather the 1000 years worth of common law rights that the government has turned its back on.

Governments and laws evolve of course they do as do arms. I have learned two important things from history among other things, the obvious one, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Secondly given a set of circumstances anything is possible. Being cautious of the potential of a military and a Parliament is not fear mongering. While both are useful both are dangerous to the democratic process. Where one could remove democracy by force the other removes it by increment and degree.

The point is, the task of government ought to be the protection of individual rights. Not removing them because it is politically expedient.

You fret about the capabilities of certain firearms and are of the opinion that they should not be allowed further you state that an individual must have a legitimate reason for owning firearms.

Self protection is the only protected right. Hunting and target shooting are not. There is no reason why an individual with no criminal convictions or proclivities should not have what ever arms they wish.

Every gun control advocate is ever worried by what arms an individual has and what they might do.
We have had only 6 spree shootings in Canada this is hardly justification for the removing of our rights
The fact of the matter is that gun control is not about "public safety" it is about "politician safety". The truth is every gun law in Canada has followed civil unrest in some area of the Country. Chretien's law c-68 came out of the OKA crisis. not the shooting in Montreal's L'ecole Polytechnique. Proof of this is that every small arm held by the Mohawk went on the list of prohibited firearms while the Ruger used by Gamil Gharbi did not. (Kim Campbell did some damage too but that is another story).

What you have said in your original post is that you have an interest in hunting. Fair enough, however you are displaying what could be termed a "FUDDISM" My hunting rifle is okay because it is bolt action(or what ever manual action you may like) To the gun control zealot that is 9x more powerful than any handgun and the deer rifle is just a high powered sniper rifle..they see no difference from one gun to the next.

What any of us is trying to say is the individual right to keep arms should be left alone. If you have a mind to take up hunting consider that there are plenty of people who disagree with that. There is always someone trying to take from you what you consider to be right. Gun control is no different. it is one thing that is self perpetuating. It requires ever increasing restrictions to solve the problems it created in the first place. It leaves the law abiding disarmed and defenceless while it never removes them from the criminal...

Scott said...

In response to Mr Kilroi; I do not believe, and I did not mean, for my responses to be condescending. I was simply replying to a objections and alternative views presented by the commentators.

The fact of the matter is, as I see it, that you and I have a very different view on the role of government.

This is not a Fascist or Dangerous regime that we live in, as far as I've seen in my lifetime there is no reason for the people of Canada to be wary of their government or their military.

I suppose it is human nature to have concerns about the people in power; that some of us will inevitably worry that those will power will exert their will over us and we must have some kind of power to stop that from happening.

Short of nuclear war, I don't see a scenario where it would even be possible for the Canadian Government to dismantle our democracy without some kind of condemnation from both the national and international community.

There is indeed a difference between caution and fear mongering, regardless of your assertion that there is not, and that difference is the realization of possibility.

A caution would be a passing remark preceded by the recognition that the event is unlikely to occur. Fear mongering is the forgoing of this recognition and treating the assumption as fact; saying that it is happening and going to happen, despite lacking solid proof to back up the claim.

Self-protection may be a right, but the necessity of guns to provide this self-protection is not. One can argue, as you and many others have, that guns are the greatest possible defense when it comes to self-protection.

I simply do not agree with that position, as I honestly do believe that there are better ways to go about it. Stronger deterrents are out there, ones with less room from accidental deaths and great harm to anyone.

The problem that I am trying to reconcile; and you may correct me if I am wrong, is that most people who have argued with me on this point (not all, but definitely a few) seem to exist on the right side of the political spectrum.

That being said, you espouse the rights of the individual and say that gun control is a way of infringing on these individual rights; a very Millian perspective.

Yet, the same right wing party that advocates loosening gun control advocates preventing adult same-sex couple from getting married; from a woman having the choice to have an abortion; and numerous other social policy issues that restrict and in some cases take away the right of the individual.

If you do not support those social polices, then I commend you on a wise decision and following through on your belief of protecting the individual. If you do support them; then I sadly must say that you are adopting populist terms to further your ends rather than actually stand by what they mean.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue, but do know that I have seriously taken your issues into consideration and done what I can to rectify them with my own believes, to challenge them and make sure that I am personally right where I want to be on this issue.

I can only hope that my comments give you the same chance to do that sort of soul searching, and help you to either strengthen your views or change them.

Mr Kilroi said...

Notwithstanding previous posts..

Scot please explain to us, why you have trouble with the concept of rights?

Explain to us why you have trouble with the idea of individuals having the maximum amount of rights and the maximum amount of freedom? (we who have committed no crimes)

Why are you willing to allow a minority dictate what rights and freedoms the majority of should have? (minority; criminals who misuse firearms and generally flout the laws of civil society)

I am in earnest, I seriously have trouble understanding people who do not value every right they possess. You're polysci grad. someday you will be in a position to influence law. either as a politician, as a civil servant or an adviser to a politician. How do the ends justify the means, when the means strips away rights?

I have made reference to the Common Law, which is the fair haired child of the people, born out of consensus and agreement, where as legislation is the brutish half brother born out of the coercive brute force of government. It is this law that has the power to remove freedom from people, it forces compliance.

There is always an upshot and downshot with rights trying to distill the downside away more often destroys the liberty of all.

Our hate speech laws come to mind. While in trying to distill hurtful rhetoric from our society is has quashed the freedom of expression of ideas. It is the basis of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it is they who decides what is hate speech.

Apart from religion, freedom is a concept that much blood has been spilt over. Many sacrificed their lives so that others could be free. Why are so many people willing to give freedoms up so quickly?

A wise man once said "those that are willing to sacrifice liberty, for a fleeting sense of security deserve neither and will loose both."

Scot we need bright fellows like yourself, consider this a plea to you to consider freedom and liberty. What value are you willing to place on yours? I ask this largely because you hold ours cheaply, however in the end it will be your freedom and your children's freedom and so on.

since you are in Saskatchewan look up Dr Edward Hudson. or Dr Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser. if you can read Dr Mauser's work and still hold your opinion I don't know much else to say...

Mr Kilroi said...

That being said, you espouse the rights of the individual and say that gun control is a way of infringing on these individual rights; a very Millian perspective.


all rights are individual, I do not support collective rights. nor do I support laws that discriminate. positively or negatively..

Scott said...

I am not against individual rights, but I do feel that there is a limit to the things that we can and cannot do; and the things that we should and should not do.

I reference in my response post on the blog the idea of a drug user who is harming no one but himself, and therefore should be allowed to do drugs because it's his right to do to himself what he wishes.

The problem, of course, is that utilitarianism is not that black and white, it is very grey.

For example, let's say the drug user was 18 but still living at home. Despite being an adult in the eyes of the law, this person is harming their family by engaging in this activity.

They harm their family by becoming a burden; by placing extra stress on parents who worry about their child now that they are doing drugs.

That is just one example of how one person's idea of 'rights' can harm another person.

You mentioned the idea of hate speech in your response, and although we are straying from the initial topic I feel I must respond to that.

As I mentioned before, times change. Government changes, the political process changes, and society changes.

Back in the twenties, you could see all kinds of racial epitaphs being strewn around by not only private citizens but those in power as well.

All of that changed, and took a lot of time and even some bloodshed, but we eventually moved past the ability to call someone of colour, a woman, or someone of a different sexual orientation a slur in public or in print.

People still use these words, I know that, but by enshrining the right of a person not to have to put up with those words is the only way to protect them from what we've seen in history.

Movements like the KKK that would beat up and kill African Americans simply because of the colour of their skin existed in their prime in these days because the government was unwilling or just didn't care enough to protect these people from persecution.

Nazi Germany came about much through the same means; finding someone who was different to blame all the problems of society on.

The fact of the matter is, hate speech is indeed not a right. While we do have freedom of speech, we are supposed to use that speech to further ourselves and our society, not drag us back into the old days of slurs and racial epitaphs.

If you value the right of the individual, then you must value the right of a person to walk freely down the street without having to hear such vile language used against them.

Hate crimes are still very much a problem throughout the world; the targets may vary but the fact remains that people still target those that are different from themselves.

And as I have said before; you cannot support the right of an individual to own a firearm whilst dismissing the right of an individual not to be discriminated against.

To bring this all back to firearms, it is not an issue of taking away weapons already in the system. As I have said before, I don't advocate ripping guns away from their owners.

What it does come down to is ensuring that responsible gun owners are the only ones who are easily able to get a firearm.

The fact of the matter is the current system is not one that I would put much faith in. A hunter safety/gun safety course, and then you're suddenly allowed to become a licensed firearm owner?

Determined people, be they good or bad, will always work to get what they want. And even if they pass these courses they are non necessarily responsible gun owners.

As for what can replace the system, well that will take some time and thought on my end. But what I am saying is that by restricting the access to weapons is the only way we have right now that can surely separate the responsible from the irresponsible.

Mr Kilroi said...

I am not against individual rights, but I do feel that there is a limit to the things that we can and cannot do; and the things that we should and should not do.

Every right carries a duty Scot. We are bound by the rule of law. One such rule of law, is the law of Torts which in essence is the law that says we are responsible for the harms we cause.

As for hate speech or the like of each and every person has the right to exist and a right to strive for the betterment of themselves (or not). Yes you made some historical references that were quite appropriate however both examples illustrate where the Governments were part of or the problem.

As for a drug abuser- indeed they are a burden to their loved ones but that is their problem to solve. Providing said addict is not thieving to support his habit or causing public wrongs how is it my business? On the other hand the state has no business in interfering with parental rights. To raise their children in accordance to their lites. Again it only becomes a concern when they cross a line. Where that line is drawn is quite simply when said lites become a burden to the public. But again the law of Torts dictates we are responsible for the harms we cause.

You seem to be of the opinion that the state has the right to interfere with the day to day lives of individuals. You seem to be plagued by puritanical thinking, in that the state ought to dictate how people should think and behave. Which in some ways makes you no different than the historical examples you cited.

Hitlers Germany or Stalins Russia? Take your pick they were both socialist states which both dictated how people will live. Freedom was crushed. Both did not allow just anyone to own a firearm.
Both declared those that disagreed with them "enemies of the state".

You want strict state controls on firearms. I have the feeling you believe that the state should control a great many other things as well. but we will stick to firearms.

There was a good socialist and a prodigious writer who once wrote "The rifle on the back of the door of the workers cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it remains there." George Orwell.

The very laws concerning firearms that you feel are not strict enough will bring us back to a time when we were mere surfs on his lordships lands. When only the privileged few were allowed arms.
This is some how progress?
Scotty
Give up the social engineering. There are 7 million of us in control of 21 million firearms who disagree with you. 5 million of which are quite willing to give up their guns when they are pried from their cold dead hands. You have only heard from a few of us.

On a closing note, while many would welcome you into the fold of the firearms community I would not. I take you to be a risk to public safety.

paulm said...

I notice you responded to comments related to the second amendment, but not mine.

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and mine, matters very little. What matters is what the Supreme Court of the US says it means, and they said it was an individual right in the decision in Heller v. D.C.

Also, your argument that one should become a better hunter, and not use semi-autos for hunting is weak. You cite bow hunters as an example of people who should be emulated. Well, I've seen a deer grazing in the summer (long after the hunting season), with an arrow through their nose (fletching on one side, broadhead on the other). I'm pretty sure that's not the most humane thing to have had happen.

Scott said...

I had hoped that we could keep this conversation civil, but calling me a threat to public safety...Well, I'd say that's less than kind.

You assert that Hitler's Germany was a socialist state. This is HIGHLY inaccurate. Fascism places the state above all else, socialism places the individual above all else.

Hitler was not a socialist. Fascism, as I said, put the state above all else. You wouldn't identify as anything other than German; you would do what was best for the state.

The only thing they share in common, them being fascism and socialism, is the idea of state-run business.

You cite Stalinist Russia, and expect this to be proof of the failed nature that is socialism. Well, I'd recommend you brush up on your history in regards to Stalin.

Many, many people agree that Stalin changed the Soviet Union. He took it from the 'worker's paradise' it was supposed to become, and turned it into an authoritarian state.

Many people will tell you that Stalin's rule in the USSR is often not even considered to be a communist rule, rather as you said, they give his political views their own ideology: Stalinism.

You say that I feel the state should be more involved in peoples lives. To an extent, yes, I suppose I do believe that.

I don't believe that we should have a 'Big Brother', like Mr. Orwell posited, nor do I believe that the state should circumvent social units such as the family, where parents or others are capable of making a decision.

But, nor do I believe the 'boogyman' image you seem to project on the state.

Scott said...

Dictators do use the common 'enemy to the state' title, that I can't deny, but what I can challenge is that you seem to think that the Canadian Government is going to apply this title to its own citizens.

If I indeed support the state and it's expansion, then there is no doubt in my mind that you would be the Libertarian.

But there are complications. You can't suggest drawing lines for 'rights' for the individual and then expect everyone to support those rights without the government making it necessary through illegality to support those rights.

As I mentioned, in the twenties African Americans were targeted by groups driven by hatred. Now, we have laws that protect minorities from this type of behaviour.

If these laws did not exist, then I can tell you, that we'd still be seeing minorities dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and subjected to such horrible things that I won't even attempt to come up with an example for it.

Couldn't happen? I lived in Yorkton for quite a long time, almost 18 years, if not more. During my time there, while I was younger, we had an African American doctor who awoke one day to find a cross in his lawn and lit a blaze.

This was in the early 90s. To no one's surprise, the doctor and his family left town shortly after wards.

I mention this because it is living proof that there are still individuals driven by baser instincts that can't handle change of society. They want to go back to the old 'boys' club days. These people exist, and more often than not, they're incredibly violent and willing to do anything to go back to those days.

So, excuse me, if I want it to be a little bit harder from them to get access to a firearm.

You said there are 7 million of us with 21 million guns. Think about that.

The fact that so few people control so many guns, well, that's a statistic that is horrifying if it is true, and doesn't really help the cause.

I say it doesn't help, because when we talk about the necessity of gun control, we do worry about that one man out there with his collection of 33 rifles, shotguns and handguns.

You say that people should be afraid of their government; but how many cases have we seen in the United States were people were stockpiling weapons and ready to go to war with the government?

You've complained that the Military has so many weapons and that it would seem possible for them to take over the country. Well, if you want to invoke that, then I suppose I'm free to invoke the opposite: That statistically, and historically speaking, it's the private citizens with a stockpile that prove to be more harmful and dangerous to society than the people we expect to protect us.

And that, is the true risk to public safety.

Anonymous said...

Scott, unfortunately, I won't be seeing you at the shooting range, as I live in Quebec, not Sask.

Maybe my trust, or lack thereof, in the government is lower because of it?

There is a huge inquiry into funds being illegally diverted by government officials, every year we have a gathering in Montreal to speak out against police brutality (which in turn become a show of police brutality), gangbangers shoot up the streets, Police officers are caught illegally selling firearms that have been confiscated to gangs, and people who have done nothing wrong are used as scapegoats because they own firearms. Lumps of metal wood and plastic.

It saddens me that our great country is being dragged through the mud like this.

Scott said...

Paulm, I apologize for not responding to your comments. I had made the reply thread before your comment had been posted.

However, if you don't mind, I will reply to it here.

You do present a good case on the Second Amendment, I will give you that. The only real defense I have, in regards to it, is that the politicization of the American Supreme Court during and before the Bush Years helped ensure that the Court had a Conservative swing to it.

Many right wingers here would say that the Liberal dominated Senate is the same way. That the court was skewed to support right wing ideological views, one of which would be the individual right to gun ownership.

As for your other points, yes, I suppose if I'm going to bring the humane way into hunting, I should expect that the animal is killed quickly. Which makes your point on semi-automatics hard to refute from that standpoint.

What I would say, however, is that people have presented cases in favour of other firearms over semi-automatics. Rifles that are strong enough to ensure that one hit is all you need, for example.

Being that that is the case, it weakens the argument for semi-automatics, but it does not dismiss it. Which brings us back to the problems of what to do in the first place.

I would argue, as I have been, that some guns are just not necessary for private ownership. I'm not saying that those already in the system should be taken away, but something could be done to restrict their further spread.

Furthermore, all I'm really asking for, is a better way to ensure that responsible gun owners are the ones who have weapons; not irresponsible ones who become John Wayne when the sun goes down.

I suppose it does come back to my belief that firearms are not and should not be the first line of defense for the private citizen. Everything has a purpose, in my opinion, and simply collecting dust on a shelf or in a gun locker, and never being used other than as a potential defensive weapon, doesn't sound useful to me.

And as I've cited here on the blog, there are occasions where that defensive weapon harms someone it was meant to protect. It in cases like these that lead me to believe that simply owning a weapon for the sake of owning a weapon, isn't reason enough.

Mr Kilroi said...

You assert that Hitler's Germany was a socialist state. This is HIGHLY inaccurate. Fascism places the state above all else, socialism places the individual above all else.

Hitler was not a socialist. Fascism, as I said, put the state above all else. You wouldn't identify as anything other than German; you would do what was best for the state.


My God lad where on earth did you get that idea??????? NAZI stands for National Socialist, socialism being at its heart. dear fellow you have been bam boozeled. It was born out of the German Workers Party.

Hitler himself admitted as much. The thrust of the movement was a German style of communism controlled by Germans and beholding to none unlike the reds of the day who were aligning themselves with the soviets.

To say that the Soviets placed the individual above the state is pure rubbish..
_______________________________
There is absolutely not a single reason why a law abiding citizen could not own what ever firearm he has the money to pay for, with out the state's permission nor its knowledge.

You could not make a single rational argument against this. your entire argument would be based in "what ifs" and fear mongering. It seems I have a higher opinion of my fellow man than you.

We have a right to keep arms in our defence.

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England Book I chapter 1

like it or not. We inherit this right into our charter viz s. 26 it is rationally connected to s.7.

Quite frankly dear fellow you are quickly proving yourself to be a dyed in the wool socialist, and an apologist for the old Soviet state. Tommy Douglas would be proud.

On a final note what makes you think you have the right to decide what an individual needs? I have some news for you.. When it comes down to it no one and I mean no one! has the right to tell me or anyone else what we may use to defend the lives of our families and ourselves.

Scotty without question you are a bureaucrat...

Scott said...

Mr. Kilroi, everyone know that the Nazi Movement branded itself from the Workers Party and even held the socialism title in it's name.

However, Hitler did indeed bemoan and condemn socialism, which is why he turned Germany into a FASCIST state. Fascism, if you will consult the political spectrum, is a hardcore RIGHT WING political ideological perspective.

Socialism and communism, on the other hand, are a hardcore LEFT WING political ideological perspective.

Even Liberalism, which you seem to espouse, is considered to be on the left of the political spectrum. Please consult this:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4_8fPeNDaDM/R6MnJmdaPLI/AAAAAAAACRE/II945Sj7IMo/s400/political%2Bspectrum%2Bcopy.jpg and notice that Stalin and Hitler are not near each other in regards to political ideology.

Hitler used the Workers Party because it was easily infiltrated and weak, something he could manipulate and reform in his image.

And Socialism revolves around putting the individual first. I never said the Soviets actually did this, hence why they belong to Stalinism rather than socialism.

Ideologically, socialism does put the individual first while fascism puts the state first. That is what I said, I never said implicitly that Stalin or Hitler did that, but that their ideological views suggest that was how the government was to be run.

You put words in my mouth that were not there, and frankly, I don't appreciate my words being manipulated to construe something I did not say.

I do indeed sir, take offense to calling me an apologist for the Soviet State. I come from Ukrainian Ancestry, and we all know the long and bloody history that the USSR had with Ukrainian Farmers. I do not apologize for any state, regardless of ideological perspective, that massacres millions of people in their pursuit of power.

As for your quoting of Sir Blackwell; I must say again what I have said before in rational argument: Blackwell was commenting on the laws of England in the 1700s.

He was not commenting on Canadian law in the 2000s. As I have said before, times change and laws change with them.

And if you want REAL rationality, Blackwell's comment: AS ALLOWED BY LAW.

Blackwell, an English Judge, admitted with that sentence that the individual is allowed to have a weapon, perhaps, but the kind of weapon must still be subject to the rule of the law. In other words, if the government banned handguns, Blackwell would agree that an individual could not own a handgun because the law forbids it.

After all, this is a man who said that in regards to the English Constitution, it must be noted that the King can do not wrong.

So it seems that even your Sir Blackwell would defer to the rule of law.

paulm said...

Scott, your argument that the Heller decision was driven by political divisions on the court is untenable. It would be tenable but for almost two hundred years of SCOTUS jurisprudence which supports the idea of firearms ownership as an individual right. There has not been one single SCOTUS decision which was overturned by Heller.

With regard to the other point, there is no such firearm as one which ensures one hit is all you need. Once a round hits a deer, all bets are off. Some are more likely than others, but it should be noted that in higher calibers a semi-automatic is preferable because a portion of the recoil of the larger round is diverted to cycle the action.

If you're looking for a better way to reduce people obtaining firearms that shouldn't have them, start with:

a) locking up people who use guns to commit crimes. Its a fact that most people who use guns to commit crimes have careers as criminals. They have often used a firearm before in the commission of a crime, and many actually have prohibitions which supposedly prevent them from possessing firearms (apparently telling them: you cannot have a gun is less effective than putting them in a cell).

b) Work on beefing up the licensing side of the equation, rather than targeting specific firearms. As I've pointed out there are desireable aspects to modern semi-autos (which incidentally fire only one shot at a time, not a burst as you stated in your post). The problem is the people, not the gun, so the solution is to make it more difficult to get the licenses, not restrict the firearms. There are a variety of ways to address this side of the equation, many of which I would likely consider supporting. That said, I go to the range regularly, and I've not met a person there who I wouldn't trust with my safety.

About the idea of firearms ownership for defense though, on that you're just wrong. We have a common law right through the English Bill of Rights (which is in force in Canada btw) to possess weapons for our personal and common defence. Self-defense is a valid use of a firearm, and there are literally thousands of cases in which they have been used and the person using them exonerated.

In the US, a person uses a firearm for defence of person or property once every 37 seconds. In almost every case, no shots are fired. The mere presence of the firearm is sufficient to cause the felon to flee or submit to arrest by lawful authorities.

There are no similar stats available for Canada, but it would likely surprise you to know how many times a firearm is used in Canada for the same purposes.

Mr Kilroi said...

Scotty the whole left wing right wing thing is passé. The political spectrum can be described either in circular terms ranging from anarchy- totalitarianism with liberal democracy between the two. But enough of that, Essentially there is no difference between communism, socialism and National socialism are essentially the same. Unless you want to quibble over the size of jackboot being ground into a person’s face?
Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Laws of England, is an exhaustive compiling of the Common Law and the Statutes of England. This is why Law should be mandatory for polysci students. You say that the laws of the 18th century are irrelevant today. Well in fact they are not because they are still on the books so to speak. We inherited the English Law as per the reception date of each Province for Nova Scotia it is 1754 for Ontario and Quebec it is 1791. Ontario Statute, RSO 1990 in fact that in all civil matters the laws of England that were in force as of 1792. IN law history is everything.

Mr Kilroi said...

Further it is relevant because s. 26 of the Charter (26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.) Brings our ancient rights and the common law into our Constitution. So indeed laws made in the 12th century can affect your life. The English Bill of Rights has been cited as late as 2002 by our Supreme Court, as has the Magna Carta. Times might change but laws don’t.
5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England Book I chapter 1
This was taken from the English Bill of Rights 1689 it is still statute law in both Canada and Britain, The Bill of Rights was a list of grievances against King James II after the deposing of the King by Willaim of Orange in the Glorious Revolution before Parliament would allow the Prince of Orange to have the Crown he had to agree to the terms of the Bill of Rights. The second part of the bill was the enactment of the corrections to the transgressions of the old king. James did a great many things “Contrary to law” hence in the second part of the bill used the term “as allowed by law”
In part I
6. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
In part II
7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
You have indeed misconstrued the meaning of this right. As allowed by law does not refer to the arms but rather the fact that they were disarmed contrary to law. To understand the law you must give deference to the linguistics of the day. “is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” It is this portion that in fact restricts the amount of force and gives permission to use force.

Mr Kilroi said...

Blackstone also wrote
In the three preceding articles we have taken a short view of the principal absolute rights which appertain to very Englishman. But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.
Now Scotty are you saying you are a “medium” and talk to the dead? How else could you claim to know the mind of Sir William Blackstone? Unlike today’s modern silliness way back when they did not blame inanimate objects for crimes. They blamed the individual for their crimes it was irrelevant what was used but rather the end result. Murder was murder dead was dead the means was important only to the extent of evidence at trial.
Scotty you suffer the same affliction of so many gun grabbers, you see firearms as having a life of their own a consciousness able to influence its owner. You also look at “what use is this?” “who needs this type” for such and such. If I might put context to it I will use a car analogy though I am loath to do so. The speed limit on most highways is 100 km/h why then do we need or have cars that can exceed that? Why do we allow high performance parts to be sold to people who are driving their cars on city streets?
Many military style weapons are extremely accurate or just plain cool like a pimped out car. They are a joy to shoot. They are a challenge to fire accurately on full auto an even greater challenge is not freezing on the trigger and wasting ammo. Just because you see no utility in them is not reason enough to deny them to ordinary individuals. I view licencing and registration as an unacceptable intrusion of my privacy and an abridgment of my rights.
To say that our democracy could never go wrong is testament to your lack of historical knowledge. To say that there would be some international objection to a change to the governance of this country is foolish. [sarcasm] The UN has done a bang up job in that department [/sarcasm] Keep playing the part of social engineer and good lil socialist lackey and I will continue to insult you. Scotty I have been around too long I was carrying a rifle before you were born. I see your fretting over firearms as a form of projection hence the reason why I view you as a danger to public safety and hope you never own firearms.

Anonymous said...

Scott,
Why the focus on the object - murder, assault, rape, B&E, are all currently illegal. Someone bent on doing this does not worry about the consequences of what tool they are using, if any.... As far as a person"breaking into my home wielding a baseball bat" - what are they there for?? Batti ng practice?? heading out to catch the game?? Whay can't I have the right to defend myself, they have already broken the law by breaking in??? You don't want to get shot, don't break into a house.
As far as making sure one shot is enough for a deer, every hunter is concerned with that, it comes down to making sure the animal is edible. Taking 5 shots at a deer could ruin 50% of the meat or more. All hunters try for quick humane kills, look up info on bullet performance, rifle accuracy, etc. and see how much effort is expended in these areas.
I do feel like a lot of your arguments do not have a lot of water, based on a lot of what ifs, look what could happen, etc. Granted, I am not going to look up stats, etc. as they bore me:) I feel like I have the right to legal gun ownership. You were wrong in your assumption that I simply went to a weekend class and presto, I can own a gun.

Starting with the background check to all references I had put down, they also had to talk to my wife, any prior relationships, etc. etc. Quite thorough. I would encourage you to go through the process and see how onerous it is. At any time, I could be denied on the fact that I had lost my job, become divorced, underwent mental health problems, etc, etc. What prevented me from lying - all of the references.
Thanks,

Mr Kilroi said...

“So it seems that even your Sir Blackwell would defer to the rule of law.” He would have no choice to because the English Parliament (as is the Canadian Parliament) is Omnipotent which lead to the saying that “No mans property or liberty is safe as long Parliament sits. Such a Parliament is so Omnipotent that it has the power to change a man to a woman solely by statute.”
Our Constitution such as it is written gives parliament the sole power to enact legislation that falls under the “Peace Order, and Good Government.” Clause. Federally they can enact any law that falls under their head of power. Charter concerns are secondary and once enacted takes an unbelievably compelling argument to strike down in the courts. The Supreme Court is the only foil in our system which is lacking in the British system the high court does not have the power to strike down a law, ours does. That is a role they do not like and are loath to use that power, in essence they are the anti-majoritarian kill switch. How else would a woman be allowed a safe therapeutic abortion. Since it is not a named right in our Charter. Nor is Gay marriage yet here it is.

Mr Kilroi said...

FREEDOM

edify yourself bask in the warm glow of FREEDOM

Scott said...

Paul, I appreciate your keeping this conversation civil.

You do raise a good point about the SCOTUS rulings prior to the case you referenced. The only real thing that I can argue, is that as Canadians the rulings of another nation do not impact us.

If the right to individual firearm ownership exists in the United States, it does not apply anymore to Canada than it does to Zambia.

That said, I do agree with you on your other points. Those who commit crimes with guns deserve tougher sentencing and sterner restrictions placed on them. But it needs to be complimented by social reforms to encourage reasons for people not to have to turn to crime in the first place.

Secondly, tougher licensing requirements might also work in ensuring that people are screened properly.

And as for your self-defense cases. While it may be true that there are cases of self-defense involving a gun; there are also cases where the self-defense went too far outside the use of force requirements, which are still legally bound.

The fear is that firearms become the first line of defense, rather than the last exhaustible option. And when it universally becomes the first option, then we're going to see an increase in firearm related deaths that stepped outside of the use of force requirement for self-defense.

Anonymous:
I know that it isn't a weekend course, which is why I didn't call it a weekend course. I called it a short course, not a weekend one.

As for the idea of references; how many people do you know who have lied on a resume? Padded things here and there and had a few people they could rely on to back up their story lines.

If Mr. Kilroi is ready to ponder that we can't trust our government, then it stands to reason that we can't trust one another either. And as such, simply relying on personally provided references is not an effective way of dealing with screening.

Scott said...

And now for us to talk again, Mr. Kilroi.

At least you've admitted that your insulting me. And as I've said, a person who has to result to insults obviously is starting to see the writing on the wall over how flimsy their argument is.

The political spectrum is still very much valid; just ask how many Conservatives in Parliament identify as neo-conservatives, which shows that the spectrum exists far outside authoritarian and libertarian view points.

While some of these systems may be executed in the same way; this is blamed on human error and human nature, as there are still ideological differences between these systems. HENCE, they are not the same.

I do appreciate the detail you are putting into your argument into the stance of the common law. And how you continue to insist that because the law is on the books, it doesn't matter when it was written, it is law.

Well, to that I say:
Hanging is still a legal punishment for horse theft in Canada, despite the death penalty not being legal. Merchants are required to provide stalks to tie up horses outside of their establishments and provide water to the animal. In some cities, bringing the scalp of an Aboriginal to the RCMP/Police detachment entitles you to a reward.

In England, which you refer to, a Scotsman can be killed within London so long as he has a bow and arrow on his person; regardless of whether or not he is holding them in his hands.

These laws are on the books and have never been removed. Yet, I'm sure if you killed an Aboriginal Canadian and took their scalp into the police station, you're not going to get that reward.

Even when the laws don't change, the laws change.

Anonymous said...

Scott,
The Firarms Safety Course actually is a weekend course -
Lying with regards to references - If you are a criminal, are you going to go through all the trouble to lie, fill out the pages on your licence application, coerce some "buddies" and wife to lie for you, sign their names to the application, recieve phone calls from the government on your behalf to check you up, or are you just going to pick up a gun from another criminal and do some crimes. Once again, crime is illegal already!! These references are all checked out, and you have a criminal background check when you apply. You cannot legislate against free will or criminal intent.

It is easy to tell others that they do not have the right to something, but be careful, as history has shown, these are slippery slopes. Even now, look at the anti terrorist legislation in the US, that allowed the government to pick up a suspected terrorist, hold them without notice, hearing, etc. for any length of time that they wished. All for the greater good, or is it? That harkens back to the Fascist/Socialist regimes of not too long ago. I feel that is too much trust to put into a government, what do you think? To plagiarize and hack a saying I read somewhere - an armed population = citizens, and unarmed population = subjects.

I did take offense with you comments regarding the fact that if I am a firearms advocate, I must be aligning myself with anti gay groups, pro life groups, etc. I believe what I wish, and wish to be left alone to enjoy a LEGAL hobby that includes hunting, target shooting, and hopefully one day allows me the ability to defend my life and yours through a means that I feel is appropriate.
Thanks

Mr Kilroi said...

Oh Scotty, nice try. You think you have argued me into a corner by my own words

As per insults hmmm. I would agree with your rebuttal of insults as per argument if my insult was just simple name calling. However sometimes a well placed insult can be a seed planted that will germinate later. which in my case it did.

Yes there are laws on the books that have become archaic Scotland is no longer at war with England. You were incorrect as to city however. It is the City of York. However as absurd as it sounds it could lawfully be done. In Canada however we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and before that we had the law reform act.

I am arguing Rights held at Common Law and if you wish to bring in other such archaic things go right ahead. It was declared that any such laws that were inconsistent with the charter was null and void. While you might see that as me conceding to you, you would be incorrect. Proof of that is that is was a part of the Penitentiary Act in Canada to, upon release from penitentiary to give the released prisoner a horse a saddle,20 dollars a shotgun and ammunition. it too is on the books but of no force.

My argument has only ever been concerned with rights. I stick by by assertion that there is only freedom following a path around to totalitarianism with all parts in between. How a politico describes themselves is neither here nor there. It still comes down to how much freedom they believe the individual is entitled to.

The point being always the individual never a group. Groups are intangible therefore should not be entitled to rights nor should a corporation for that matter.

I have issue with our charter for that reason, it supports apparthied and discrimination.

Scotty you might think you are being clever and you might think you are being reasonable in your assertion that gun control must be stricter. You are entitled to the belief that self protection is not a legit reason for firearms. The question then becomes are you willing to put that assertion to the test?

If you feel that strongly nail a sign into your lawn or on your door stating that you do not believe in the use of firearms for self defence and that there are no guns on your premises and that you will not defend your property or anyone else's. That way you can remove any uncertainty in the minds of would be burglars and stop hiding behind the idea that they don't know your not armed.

Thats only fair why should you benefit from the protection of firearms fictitious or otherwise?

As for safety concerns Scotty I pay a mere $8 a year for $10 000 000 worth of liability insurance. How much do you pay for car insurance? How much does your Doctor pay for his liability insurance. Two major insurance boards have stated that firearms owners are a low risk. Do you really think they are in the business of writing cheques?

Some rights are absolute rights and should never be the topic of debate other rights fall subject to the rule of law, and we as a society will differ these rights in order to live in harmony with one another. My biggest bone of contention is that you hold rights so cheaply and see them as mere political theories that can be voided when utility favours such.

At the age of 29 you have the temerity to decide what rights should be taken away. I'll wager your life's experience to date has been fairly safe. You have never suffered a violent act. At age 19 I had, I have been held at gun point Scotty my life was threatened that one night. It changed my outlook forever..So it isn't a theory to me, being unarmed and defenceless is the most indescribable feeling, knowing your life is at the whim of another. So as far as guns and self protection go you are not qualified.

BTW the ancient common law definition of murder is the deliberate killing of a reasonable person (being) and the defence to that is still that the killing was justified because the person (being) was unreasonable. The Crown is required to still prove all elements of the charge.

Mr Kilroi said...

This is how you get called an apologist

While some of these systems may be executed in the same way; this is blamed on human error and human nature, as there are still ideological differences between these systems. HENCE, they are not the same.

Socialism is Socialism, whether there is a swastika or a hammer and sickle or a nice red star. To blame implementation and still praise system has been used for the past 40 years by the so called libleft chic classes of the west. Oh we don't mean that kind of socialism we mean this kind, blaming the atrocities of the Socialist Republics on human error and misinterpreting their actions.

I stand by my earlier assertion that is doesn't matter it is still totalitarianism..

putting it succinctly you are picking the fly shit out of the pepper.

Socialism is, putting it in the simplest terms making everybody equal then making some people more equal. This group gets special treatment because... or that group has been privileged for so long *(true or not) it's okay to discriminate against them. it is the collectivization of society into competing groups, with nanny governance keeping everybody equal but separate. Sweden is often used as the shining example of modern socialism. yet you get silly laws like "urinals are outlawed" only because it discriminates against women because they can't stand up while they wiz.

The long and the short of it is this form of governance is only sustainable through ever increasing regulation of the populace. Rights are removed one slice at a time till there are none but privileges and government permissions. what is left is an oligarchy. It is inevitable

Stalin screwed up the soviet union, however there were a long line of successors that didn't fix it either.