Posted on 06/04/2007 4:37:10 PM PDT by neverdem
My friend, noted Quebec academic and author Pierre Lemieux, submitted his firearms licence-renewal application directly to the Prime Minister's office this week. "Mr. Prime Minister," he wrote in a covering letter enclosing his Form 979, "I would like to suggest that you should enforce your own "laws" yourself. You will note that, as a proud descendant of the disobedient French Canadian coureurs de bois, I have not answered one of the form's indiscreet and obscene questions. I answered that my love affairs are none of your business." (Form 979 asks, among other things, about recently ended romantic relationships.)
Atta boy, Pierre. It may not do much good, but cowering like mice before "the insolence of office," as Shakespeare called it, won't do much good either.
Whenever Toronto the Good turns into a shooting gallery, which has been most years, the blood spilled in the streets becomes a transfusion for the tired veins of gun control advocates. It also reinvigorates the ageing vampires of anti-Americanism, with a few drops left over to feed the scavengers who search for the "root causes" of crime.
Blaming everyone but the culprits -- violent youth gangs waging turf wars -- the promoters of failed social policies are demanding more of the same. They want more regulations for the law-abiding, more molly-coddling for the lawless and more America-bashing for everyone.
The racket Toronto's Mayor made two-three years ago about "cheap American guns" in Hogtown's streets was especially ironic. Crime spooks everyone, including Yanks. For quite some time now, Americans have been experimenting with solutions in the area of gun control that are only too Canadian.
When the U.S. Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1993, Canadians were puzzled by the emotional debate. Why fuss about a five-day waiting period before a person is able to purchase a handgun? Though many Canadians owned handguns, they took it for granted that gun ownership was less than a right, and it entailed jumping through elaborate bureaucratic hurdles.
America's congressional representatives had a different view until 1993. U.S. citizens, whether they owned a gun or not, believed that they had a right -- indeed, a constitutional right -- to bear arms. They understood this to mean that they could go into a store to buy a gun at will, without being hampered by regulations.
What changed the minds of U.S. citizens in sufficient numbers to allow passage of the Brady Bill 14 years ago? In a word, crime.
The bill passed primarily because, ever since the turbulent 1960s,many more-or-less peaceful American cities had become battle zones. By 1993, it was an everyday event for shoppers, passers-by, even children, to be gunned down in neighbourhood streets, schoolyards and parks.
Americans believed in their right to bear arms, but didn't condone gunplay in the streets. On the contrary, chances were the more a person endorsed a citizen's right to own a gun for lawful purposes, the more he or she condemned crime and the criminal use of firearms.
The gun lobby's argument, in the catchy phrase of the National Rifle Association, has always been that guns don't kill, criminals do. However, things aren't so simple. It's true that guns don't kill, criminals do, but it's also true that guns make criminals more efficient killers. Keeping guns away from criminals would undoubtedly reduce the worst effects of violent crime.
The problem is that gun control in any form practical in a free society -- certainly in any form currently proposed or practised in Canada or the U.S., such as demanding details about Professor Lemieux's love life -- doesn't keep guns away from criminals. It only keeps guns away from law-abiding citizens. Interfering with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and carry arms does nothing to reduce violence in the street.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens pose little danger to public safety. (Less danger, to be statistically precise, than unattended swimming pools.) In fact, from the point of view of public safety, the worst combination is armed criminals confronting unarmed citizens.
Yet this is all our current gun control laws can possibly achieve: Armed criminals confronting unarmed citizens. The 1993 Brady Bill was no exception. It could do nothing but add some annoyance and red tape to the life of a law-abiding person who wished to purchase a gun.
Brady did not stop a person with a criminal record. Such a person could buy an illegal handgun around the corner, which he probably preferred to do anyway. Criminals don't like committing crimes with guns registered to them.
Neither does a five-day wait deter the deranged or the enraged. The mad sniper simply waits; he has all the time. As for the impulsive or domestic criminal, he seldom goes shopping for weapons. He uses whatever is handy, whether a meat cleaver or a 12-gauge shotgun.
Is there a kind of gun law that could reduce violent crime? Yes, a complete ban on the possession of all firearms, coupled with draconian penalties. Such laws existed in most totalitarian countries, and they worked. There was almost no gunplay in the streets. In those societies, no one had to worry about his safety -- until he saw a policeman.
Form 979 asks, among other things, about recently ended romantic relationships!
Good Article thanks for posting.
Bookmarked
Good article - thanks for posting.
In those societies, no one had to worry about his safety -- until he saw a policeman. and there it is...
His mom was better.
What is left unsaid is that in societies in which the gun-ban zealots get their way and virtually no one can get a gun (even criminals), you have thereby created a new criminal class...otherwise known as the government. That's because creating a set of laws, regulators and enforcers strong enough to disarm virtually everyone in society gives those in charge the absolutely perfect tool to become a dictator. Its happened before, and it'll happen again - just, I pray, let it not happen in the US.
I was thinking that including a statement about her continual flirting and disrobing is getting to be an embarrasment.
“What is left unsaid is that in societies in which the gun-ban zealots get their way and virtually no one can get a gun (even criminals), you have thereby created a new criminal class...otherwise known as the government. “
I think that he actually did make that clear with the last line of the piece:
“In those societies, no one had to worry about his safety — until he saw a policeman.”
It was well written. I do have one question though, he uses the term yank in the article. Do you mean to tell me that even the Canadians call us Yanks???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.