Have gun will travel
The question that arises after a, predominantly urban, shooting is a handgun ban. But would a ban be effective? Hand gun fans say it is pointless and ineffectual and you are punishing the wrong people (law-abiding target shooters and collectors).
The principal of less guns meaning less criminal opportunity however, is unassailable. Others say that the bad guys would just get them somewhere else. Sure, of course they will. But if it’s not in a home or a gun store there is one less gun to get, right?
The best counter-argument for resisting a hand gun ban is economic: that it would cost too much to implement and would lead to a gun registry-type bureaucratic nightmare. There would be costs associated with seizure and searches but we are paying for the police anyway. The more hand guns that the state takes, the less there are around period. It doesn’t need to be a registry deal at all. Just don’t sell them and go after the handguns that you know about. Not a big deal. There not a lot of actual hand gun owners compared with long gun owners.
Long gun owners fear that they might be next. And factor into that protest the rural/urban divide with rural areas steadfastly supporting guns of any kind and urban areas opposed.
Another counter hand gun band argument is, shockingly, protecting your family; as if long guns couldn’t do that against the gangster hoards that are allegedly lining up to rape and pillage every farm house.
The answer is, it is not about what is “effective,” no one thing is the answer. We need tougher sentencing and more policing and to address socio-economic problems. But a handgun ban wouldn’t hurt. How could it hurt? Will it inconvenience sport shooters and collectors, sure. So what? They’re firing blanks anyway.
Shoot me. Go ahead make my day, punk.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
We have forgotten even in “peace loving Canada” that free men and women have the right to protect themselves.
Our English forefathers in both the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights made the owership of firearms a right. That is correct…a right. Our American cousins were not the first to recognize the need to protect themselves against.
When King George tried to confiscate firearms to prevent armed revolt by the colonists, the Americans enshrined this right as the Second to Amendment to ensure that future generations of free people would be protected against such tyrany.
In Canada, our large urban cities are faced with increasing gun violence.and fewer dollars being spent on policing. As an example Toronto wants its police service to cut spending by 10%. The police cannot be everywhere, nor can they guarantee your safety.
So instead of dealing with the perprators (the Problem) we remove from those least able to protect themselves (The Public) the only means possible of doing so… the handgun. The handgun is a defensive weapon. It is the equalizer. It allows a 105 lbs. woman to protect herself against a 250 lbs. rapist, or murderer.
So instead of disarming the public, we should be enforcing their right to protect themselves. Banning handguns will work against the ultimate goal of a safe society. One only has to look at the UK and Austrailia to see that crime sky rockets when the criminals know the populace is unarmed.
Lets be harsh on those that use violence to commit crimes, but applaud those that defend themselves when threatened.
Anything else will only increase the cycle of violence.