PunBB

Now that the facts have been released, let's revisit the question.

The RCMP has revealed that ... Roszko was forbidden to own firearms since 2000. Despite this, he was armed with:
- a rifle, which had to be registered under current law,
- an assault rifle which at the very least had to be registered, and which may have been completely illegal (the RCMP are not commenting on whether it was fully automatic), and
- a pistol, which had to be registered under the old gun control laws in effect before the Montreal massacre.

Somehow, despite all existing measures, a man who was prohibited from owning firearms got his mitts on two long guns (one potentially a prohibited weapon) and a restricted weapon.

The Grope and Flail reports that he was known to own the weapons and that police had failed to confiscate them. In 1993, they searched specifically for the assault rifle (which suggests that it was believed to be a prohibited weapon). Also, most of Roszko's weapons were illegally smuggled from the United States.

Now that the facts are in, does the suggestion that more gun control is needed appear to be, gosh, I dunno, political opportunism?

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Now that the facts are in, does the suggestion that more gun control is needed appear to be, gosh, I dunno, political opportunism?

YES!

Here's to keen insight and seasoned rationale!

Amen to that Esthete. What's next, totally banning possession of firearms? Gun control laws that do not focus on people who should not have them, ie felons, mentally ill people are unconstitutional, in my view.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Amen to that Esthete. What's next, totally banning possession of firearms? Gun control laws that do not focus on people who should not have them, ie felons, mentally ill people are unconstitutional, in my view.

Mentally ill people are unconstitutional?! Oh, wait ... I understand now...

You forget this is in Canada. The constitution here has nothing to say about ownership of weapons.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Amen to that Esthete. What's next, totally banning possession of firearms? Gun control laws that do not focus on people who should not have them, ie felons, mentally ill people are unconstitutional, in my view.

Mentally ill people are unconstitutional?! Oh, wait ... I understand now...

You forget this is in Canada. The constitution here has nothing to say about ownership of weapons.

This is true, however I have to ask how Canadian politicans can pass laws imposing restrictions on gun ownership, spend 1 billion dollars on a registry that hasn't done a very good job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people and want to pass more gun laws based on a supposed public clamor for more restrictions.

Politicians always pass laws based on public clamour. That's what they do.

Ask instead where the public clamour originates.

I agree totally that calls for more gun control are political opportunism of the highest order (or lowest, depending on your viewpoint). What the advocates of increasing gun control fail to realize is that criminals like Mr. Roszko will not register their guns like responsible, law-abiding citizens do. More gun control does absolutely nothing to address the problems of how criminals obtain guns and how to stop criminals from using guns in committing crimes. As a result Canadian taxpayers have poured billions into this gun registry with the strong probability that it will have little to no impact on crime in this country. Shameful.

These things can go round in circles forever, and we've kinda done it to death around here, but I'll drop my two cents: Gun Registry is not a waste of money, it's administration was faulty. It needs to be reformed, not removed. It does serve a purpose.

One thing that struck me while watching some gun-lover speak at the Conservative convention was this silly little question: "Why do we even need guns anymore?"

All the libertarian, small-government, South of the border: "It's in the Constitution DAMMIT!" and even "it's fun and recreational" stuff don't seem to hold a candle to the damage they do.

A rancher on a farm? Okay, I can see licensing him, and I'm sure there are a few other people who actually need guns for their daily existence. But how in anyway are firearms and the right to own them contributing to the greater good?

I understand how ridiculous and impossible prohibition would be at this stage, but the question remains: What are they here for? Why do we need them? What good are they doing, and why the hell are major retailers like K-Mart and Wal-Mart selling them in inner cities and suburbs?

I just can't go along with guns as 'symbols of freedom' or 'fundamental rights' or even as protective measures when all the stats about the gun under your pillow killing your own kids seem to refute them.

Maybe it's because I don't understand gun culture, but every argument I've ever hard to ease gun control seems patently ridiculous to me. To be frank, I don't think a good argument exists.

You demonstrate the fundamental bias that drives mainstream reporting on gun control, Stephen, which in turn is responsible for creating the misinformed pressure for additional gun control every time there is a handgun shooting involving a weapon illegally smuggled from the United States.

I know no one in Canada -- and I know a lot of gun owners, although I'm not one myself -- who argues that they need a gun for home defence, or because it is in the constitution, or to counteract the power of the gummit. Those people are out there, but they are the fringe. And because the average reporter is a lazy scumsucker who is satisfied to print he-said/she-said bullshit rather than finding real sources, it is the vocal fringe that is quoted, and everyone begins to believe the bullshit.

You are proposing that people shouldn't hunt? That target shooting or skeet shooting are not legitimate as sport or recreation?

Perhaps you think hunting should be banned because guns can kill people, and people can always go to the supermarket? That skeet shooting is unnecessary? What proportion of firearms homicides do you think this will prevent? Does this justify an edict forbidding over a million people from continuing to do what their fathers and grandfathers did before them? What entitles us to ban their way of life and traditions?

And what precisely are those stats on kids being killed by guns kept under pillows, here in Canada?

If you were familiar with Canada's firearms laws, you would know that it is illegal to store a loaded weapon, much less keep it under your pillow. Are you proposing to punish people who obey the law, because others do not? Should private vehicles be banned from the roads on New Years, because some people drink and drive?

Gun control is a good thing, but it needs to be appropriate. What is the evidence that further gun control is needed?

Tell me, Dame: in your work as a fearless freelance journalist, do you routinely form opinions on subjects that you admit you don't understand?

Stephen Dame Wrote:One thing that struck me while watching some gun-lover speak at the Conservative convention was this silly little question: "Why do we even need guns anymore?" All the libertarian, small-government, South of the border: "It's in the Constitution DAMMIT!" and even "it's fun and recreational" stuff don't seem to hold a candle to the damage they do.

"...the damage that they do"? Who is they? The guns? Has a snub-nosed .38 jumped out of its cabinet, loaded itself, and greased six kids in your local high school?

Once again, it's the old blame-game. Only in today's "it's not my fault" society would we shift our castigation from the murderer or psychopath to the instrument of death.

The only 'damage' done by the many gun owners in my family with their weapons (note how I phrased that) has been to drop the occasional coyote who tries to make a meal out of a ewe, or to end the suffering of a quarter horse with a compound leg fracture, or to rid a farm pond from the muskrats who threaten its entire bass population, or to put a delectably greasy duck on the dinner table. These are all examples of the practical and responsible use of firearms, aside from the aspects of self-defense, which I must insist is at the forefront of their legitimacy (sorry, skippy).

How can you possibly say that you "understand how ridiculous and impossible prohibition would be", and then turn around and scoff at the legitimacy of possessing firearms for self-defense? How asinine is it to strip a citizen of his right to brandish the same weapon which could realistically threaten the lives of himself and his family? It's as if gun control proponents refuse to acknowledge the concept of 'principle' along with that of 'natural right'. Yes, the human race might be altogether "better off" if firearms had never been invented, but it's too late for that. Guns are a reality, as is the instinct and the right to defend oneself. Tell me - how does a gun control proponent suggest a man defend his family if a crazed, gun-weilding derelict enters his home? Huddle in the bathtub will cell phone in hand, and just hope the maniac goes away or the police show up before the slaughter? That's just not natural, nor realistic.

Nothing personal, Dame, but amidst this debate, nothing infuriates me more than this type of rationale:

Stephen Dame Wrote:I just can't go along with guns as 'symbols of freedom' or 'fundamental rights' or even as protective measures when all the stats about the gun under your pillow killing your own kids seem to refute them.

Pile up as many of those stats as you wish - all they will add up to is a lack of responsibility. Why does the left always focus on the symptom of the problem and never the problem itself?? They always take the angle which ignores the initial breakdown, that primary act of irresponsible behavior, and concentrate instead on the resulting effects of that irresponsible behavior, depriving citizens of their inalienable rights in the process. If Johnny Jackass doesn't secure his firearm and teach Johnny Junior that the locked bedroom closet housing the locked gun cabinet and the locked ammo box are absoltutely off-limits, a tragedy could result. Just as a tragedy could result from improper supervision of that child near an open swimming pool or busy street or hot stove or toxic chemicals, or leaving matches or cigarette lighters within the child's reach.

The explanation for this consistent glossing-over of that initial irresponsible behavior is just as skippy stated in the first post: political opportunism. It's just a artificial niche created in the political landscape so some wannabes can jump on the gravy train, since there's sure to be some blind support following the tugging of the heartstrings.

There are dangers inherent in life, and as mentioned before, it is impossible to seek them all out and obliterate them. Individual freedom and natural law gives us the right to protect ourselves from these dangers, and we are obligated do so through foresight, education, parental control, discipline, and responsibility, and in the rare occasion when those are not enough (like when someone threatens bodily harm to you or your family) a firearm may be that last saving grace.

How one can suggest that we strip citizens of that saving grace solely because of cases of individual irresponsibility and resident evil is absurd.