Canada's Gun Culture Needs Defending

Guns and ammo ranked the 10 best countries for gun owners. Canada ranked a respectable sixth (4th for rate of gun ownership). The U.S. was, naturally, ranked 1st.

"The Good: Canada’s hunting and sport-shooting traditions continue, despite the many successes of its anti-gun lobby. In 1995 the country required every gun to be registered in a federal database, but the scheme was famously disastrous and ceased operation in 2012. 

The Bad: Canada has outright bans on pistols with barrel lengths under 4.1 inches, semi-auto rifle magazines holding more than 5 rounds and semiautomatic pistol magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Pistols with barrel lengths exceeding 4.1 inches, long guns with an overall length under 26 inches and semi-auto rifles with barrels under 18 ½ inches (i.e. AR-15 variants) can only be shot at firearms ranges and require a special license. All gun ownership requires a “possession and acquisition license.” Canada’s storage requirements include provisions that the guns be unloaded and rendered inoperable or locked. Forget using them for self-defense.
Rate of Ownership: 23.8 percent" 

I have a feeling a couple of shooting sprees will indeed and inevitably lead the left to call for further restrictions and may threaten this tradition down the road. In my view, people who clamor for restrictions are the sort of folk who don't see the purpose of hunting or shooting as a sport ergo take their guns...for the greater good.

It's a problematic outlook that comes with disastrous consequences for civil liberties.
Never mind about the government messing around with out lives. This is what angers me about Canada:

"Canada’s storage requirements include provisions that the guns be unloaded and rendered inoperable or locked. Forget using them for self-defense."

When I did my gun course the teacher went out of his way to drill this into our brains.

If someone enters your home you can't shoot them. They tress pass for who know what reason and should you find yourself in danger, the government applies a dubious condition of 'appropriate force' on the victim.

This sickens me as a human being with natural born rights to self-defense. It's outrageous the government basically outlawed this RIGHT. It makes no sense to me how a government can steal this from under the threat of imprisonment.

Immoral even.
And it's not paranoia. Just read any paper. It's hard not to come across an article along these lines. For example, nutcases like Stasi at the New York Daily News calling for the Feds to designate the NRA a 'terrorist organization'. Her epic logical fail can easily find its way into policy because emotions can get the better of reason.

Regarding the U.S. and the irrational calls for more restrictions.

The thing I find interesting with states like New York expanding gun control laws is they do it even though gun crime has been on the decline since the early 1990s. There really isn't a need for it on safety grounds thus lending more credence it's confiscatory plain and simple.

Gun rights is like free speech and expression I've come to accept. Either you have rights or you don't and the U.S. Constitution clearly specifies Americans have those rights.

But this is nothing new when it comes to state control, really. They will claim, for example, their initiatives (either through campaigning and awareness or taxes or some combination of both) lead to a greater good.

Take soda bans or taxes on sugary drinks.

Consumer habits are not cemented but are in a constant state of flux. In other words, the government has no idea what consumers like and in what direction their tastes are headed because, well, they're not in fucking business. The government is a laggard when it comes to such things. So off the bat whatever they have in mind is likely already wrong.

It's nearly impossible to claim a 'tax on sodas' can lead to a change in consumption. More likely, that change had begun way before the needless tax (remember taxes are inefficient). Kids today don't just drink Orange Crush or Dr. Pepper. They've expanded their habits to Starbucks and energy drinks (already absurdly in the crosshairs of bureaucrats) - something I'm sure the government would love to demonize next.

What we do know is such interference on the part of the nanny state invariably tend to lead to unintended consequences (hurt the poor who rely on inexpensive drinks).

Government nannying is bad for your health.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.