Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada
Defeat Of Bill An Opportunity For Firearms Owners
National Firearms Association article link
The vote on September 22 that quashed Bill C-391 and thus kept the firearms registry in place for the time being represents a great opportunity for the firearms owning public, according to Sheldon Clare, President of Canada’s National Firearms Association.
“Canadian firearms owners now have a clear goal for the next federal election - to put in place a majority Conservative government that will repeal the 1995 Liberal Firearms Act in its entirety, and remove the offensive provisions of the previous legislation,” stated Sheldon Clare, “For the firearms community C-391 represented a compromise, but it is apparent that with the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP voting to support their vested interests over the interests of their constituents, that the need for Canadians to elect a majority Conservative government is more apparent than ever.”
“Canadian firearms owners have been treated like criminals for paperwork offenses for far too long,” he continued, “ It is time to repeal this unnecessary and offensive law that protects no one, and creates a terrible opportunity for those who would abuse power. Registration has but one purpose, and that is to create a list of firearms for the purpose of later confiscation. In every country in the world in which a registration system was put in place, the lists were used to take away firearms from people. In Canada, this has happened through the registration, restriction and prohibition of firearms, and then confiscating them from the lawful owners who dutifully purchased their property and registered it in good faith, only to find that the police had arbitrarily decided to take it away. Registration has never been about public safety.”
“Canada is at a crossroads with a choice between supporting basic freedoms, or severely curtailing those freedoms in the name of flawed emotional arguments and failed public policy. The political parties have shown where they stand on the issue, and now Canada’s firearms owners have good reason to become more active and do the same,” he concluded.
For more information contact:
Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications
Ph: 604-753-8682
Email: Blair@nfa.ca
Sheldon Clare, President
Ph: 250-981-1841
Email: Sheldon_Clare@shaw.ca
Canada’s NFA toll-free number: 1-877-818-0393
National Firearms Association home page
Canadian Shooting Sports Association home page
Canada Long-Gun Registry: 153 to 151 House of Commons Vote
National Post, Full Comment
Registry Vote Leaves Police Image Wounded
By Lorne Gunter article link
September 23, 2010 | National Post
How The Firearms Act (Bill C-68) Violates The Charter of Rights And Freedoms
Study directed by: Dr. F.L. (Ted) Morton study link
University of Calgary | First Presented In Saskatoon, SK October 5, 2002
The Legal Basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada
Compiled, with commentary, by Bruce N. Mills article link
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada home page
Gary Mauser, Ph D Professor Emeritus
Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies
Faculty of Business Administration
Simon Fraser University Burnaby BC, CANADA
To: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
Re: Bill C-391 - Countering Ten Misleading Claims
In response to the misleading claims made by the Coalition for Gun Control
Presentation By Dr. Gary Mauser article link
Gary Mauser home page
The Politics of Firearms Registration in Canada
By Gary Mauser article link
Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case
By Gary Mauser article link
Evaluating Canada’s 1995 Firearm Legislation
By Gary A. Mauser article link
Off-Target: Gun Control in Canada
Missing Guns: Are the Canada Firearms Centre Estimates Off-Target?
By G. Larry Mays & Rick Ruddell article link
A Billion Dollars Later: The Canadian Firearms Act, Revisited
By Donald Blake Webster article link
SAF Journal on Firearms and Public Policy pdf index
Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales
excerpt ...
This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a), the history of gun control in both Canada and the Commonwealth demonstrates the slippery slope of accepting even the most benign appearing gun control measures. At each stage, the government either restricted access to firearms or prohibited and confiscated arbitrary types of ordinary firearms. In Canada, registration has been shown to mean eventual confiscation. As well, police search powers have been increased. The expansion of the state’s search and seizure powers should be taken very seriously by all civil libertarians concerned about the erosion of Canadians’ individual rights. Canada’s democratic institutions may also have been damaged by the transfer of what many would consider legislative powers to both the police and cabinet under firearm legislation.
Firearm registration also violates the basic rules of policing set forth in the 1820s by Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the first professional police force, the British Bobbies. In order for laws to be enforced effectively, the police must have the support of citizens being policed. However, experience in several countries shows that passive resistance to firearms registration is widespread. Instead of seeing gun control as a policy response to violent crime, it is more useful to view it as the product of conflict between urban and rural cultures (Kleck 1996). Much as the temperance movement was an attempt to impose rural values upon urban residents, firearm registration may be seen as an attempt by urbanites to impose their cultural values upon the rest of society.
The demonization of average people who happen to own a gun lays the foundation for a massive increase in governmental intrusiveness in the lives of ordinary citizens. Firearm registration and owner licensing threatens long-standing Canadian liberties and freedoms. The type of gun control Canada has enacted is not consistent with many democratic principles and the protection of civil liberties. Nevertheless, Canada is spearheading a move in the United Nations to impose a similar regime of draconian restrictions around the world.
Disarming the public greatly increases cynicism about government among much of the population and it diminishes their willingness to comply with other, future regulations that might even be more sensible. The sense of alienation grows with the severity of the restrictions and with the ineffectiveness of their result. Unfortunately, policy dictates that the current directions will continue and, more important, will not be examined critically. This last is a guarantee of the increase of that future alienation.
It will only worsen as the mass media become slowly aware that their bias towards the banning of guns has been misdirected and begin shifting their attention to the large quantities of money that have been wasted in pursuit of a dream of social engineering that was doomed from the start.
Only the United States has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade. The justice system in the United States differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but one of the important reasons for the drop in violent crime may be that responsible citizens are increasingly carrying concealed handguns (Lott 2000). In contrast, authorities in the Commonwealth insist upon a monopoly of force. If the goal is deterring criminal violence, perhaps it is time for Commonwealth countries to encourage more individual self-reliance.
Gun laws may not reduce violent crime but criminal violence causes gun laws—at least, well-publicized crimes do. The only winner in this drama is bureaucracy. The rest of us lose liberty as well as safety. It is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. There have always been criminals, and there have always been deranged people. Murder has been illegal for thousands of years: we need only remember the saga of Cain and Abel. The mass media find gun crimes more newsworthy but multiple civilian murders by arson have historically claimed more lives than incidents involving firearms. The truth is we live in a dangerous world and the government cannot protect us, if for no other reason than the police cannot be everywhere. We must ultimately rely upon ourselves and it is only right we have the necessary tools to do so.
Gun Control Sources/Info Canada:
Coalition For Gun Control home page
IANSA North America Region web page
IANSA North America Region Members web page
IANSA home page
0 comments:
Post a Comment