Well, I guess our worst fears are almost realized, so here's hoping they do not come to pass. I have some thoughts and suggestions re the ban:
I don't believe that the PM honestly believes that the ban will cause crime to fall. Besides the weight of simple logic (legal v illegal guns), statistical evidence from the UK (total handgun ban) and Australia (partial ban) show that there is not a statistically significant relationship between civilian firearms ownership and firearms crime.
That said, as a politician, I doubt very much that he will let the facts get in the way of an election platform. It is truly sad that in a democratic society an elected official can so sway an uneducated public through emotive language, reference to their greatest fears and highlighting firearm stereotypes.
"All gun owners are rednecks hell bent on killing other human beings; all guns are dangerous, unpredictable, and are owned and used soley for killing; modern firearms are designed to defeat body armor; criminals have PAL's."
Like so much drivel. It is so easy to paint firearms in a negative light, because most people only see guns on the news after a gang shooting, or on the silver screen being used by the bad guy. They are never shown as recreational toys to be enjoyed by the whole family. News stories rarely, if ever, show Canadians participating in international tournaments with people from 20 other countries, or the informal social side of shooting - people from all backgrounds coming together to enjoy a common interest. No, it is much easier, and much more politically expedient to say that so long as civilians own firearms there will be blood on the streets.
Back to the issue at hand, the reality is that handgun owners are fighting against an unjust movement by rhetoric spitting politicians who are motivated by the prospect of a flood of votes by socially concerned individuals who have been fooled into believing everything they see on the news, and everything that their politicians say.
However, against the backdrop of political rhetoric are the practicalities of implementing such a ban. These can be broken down into three areas:
- Votes
- Money
- Perception
The PM believes that this ban will buy him votes. Prove that the ban will not.
The buyback will cost a tremendous amount of money. The cost of handguns, handgun parts and accessories is a huge waste of taxpayers money. The government operates on a limited budget, but more specifically are accountable to the citizens to show that they are not wasting it. Prove that the ban will.
Finally, the ban rests on public perception of guns and gun owners. These include ingrained stereotypes that make for a ban to win easy votes, and allows the government to justify wasting taxpayer money. Prove these stereotypes wrong.
As such, IMHO, I would suggest that the following may be a good idea for all firearms owners in Canada:
(1) VOTES:
Keep writing to your representatives. Write to the papers. Take part in polls. Talk to your friends about how wasteful and illogical the ban is. Hopefully the weight of public opinion (which will sway our way with public education - in this case, pro gun propaganda is not needed as the ban is so illogical. The PM needs to know that the ban will cost him votes.
(2) MONEY:
In your letters and discussions, identify areas where the government has claimed insufficient resources. Every hospital and school left under resourced should be brought up against the amount of money (at around $500 per firearm) that will be spent on a wasteful ban.
Also, buy registerable handguns. The more registered handguns, the more expensive it becomes. Even if you buy a $200 Norinco, if handgun owners are grandfathered you will agree that it is the best $200 you could ever spend on shooting.
(3) PERCEPTION:
Invite the public to see the positive side of shooting. Invite friends to the range. As Stormbringer has done, invite the press. Those of you on club committees, arrange days where your range is open to the public for free to try shooting for themselves: the rhetoric of the evils of shooting fades to insignificance in the light of an actual positive experience shooting.
----- ----- ----
One final note, do not become complacent. I have already seen some posts along the lines of "the ban is not so bad." Get real. Complacency is a bigger enemy than the ban itself, because in this situation, it is my sincere belief that those of you who are sitting back and hoping for the best should be prepared to accept the worst.
I don't believe that the PM honestly believes that the ban will cause crime to fall. Besides the weight of simple logic (legal v illegal guns), statistical evidence from the UK (total handgun ban) and Australia (partial ban) show that there is not a statistically significant relationship between civilian firearms ownership and firearms crime.
That said, as a politician, I doubt very much that he will let the facts get in the way of an election platform. It is truly sad that in a democratic society an elected official can so sway an uneducated public through emotive language, reference to their greatest fears and highlighting firearm stereotypes.
"All gun owners are rednecks hell bent on killing other human beings; all guns are dangerous, unpredictable, and are owned and used soley for killing; modern firearms are designed to defeat body armor; criminals have PAL's."
Like so much drivel. It is so easy to paint firearms in a negative light, because most people only see guns on the news after a gang shooting, or on the silver screen being used by the bad guy. They are never shown as recreational toys to be enjoyed by the whole family. News stories rarely, if ever, show Canadians participating in international tournaments with people from 20 other countries, or the informal social side of shooting - people from all backgrounds coming together to enjoy a common interest. No, it is much easier, and much more politically expedient to say that so long as civilians own firearms there will be blood on the streets.
Back to the issue at hand, the reality is that handgun owners are fighting against an unjust movement by rhetoric spitting politicians who are motivated by the prospect of a flood of votes by socially concerned individuals who have been fooled into believing everything they see on the news, and everything that their politicians say.
However, against the backdrop of political rhetoric are the practicalities of implementing such a ban. These can be broken down into three areas:
- Votes
- Money
- Perception
The PM believes that this ban will buy him votes. Prove that the ban will not.
The buyback will cost a tremendous amount of money. The cost of handguns, handgun parts and accessories is a huge waste of taxpayers money. The government operates on a limited budget, but more specifically are accountable to the citizens to show that they are not wasting it. Prove that the ban will.
Finally, the ban rests on public perception of guns and gun owners. These include ingrained stereotypes that make for a ban to win easy votes, and allows the government to justify wasting taxpayer money. Prove these stereotypes wrong.
As such, IMHO, I would suggest that the following may be a good idea for all firearms owners in Canada:
(1) VOTES:
Keep writing to your representatives. Write to the papers. Take part in polls. Talk to your friends about how wasteful and illogical the ban is. Hopefully the weight of public opinion (which will sway our way with public education - in this case, pro gun propaganda is not needed as the ban is so illogical. The PM needs to know that the ban will cost him votes.
(2) MONEY:
In your letters and discussions, identify areas where the government has claimed insufficient resources. Every hospital and school left under resourced should be brought up against the amount of money (at around $500 per firearm) that will be spent on a wasteful ban.
Also, buy registerable handguns. The more registered handguns, the more expensive it becomes. Even if you buy a $200 Norinco, if handgun owners are grandfathered you will agree that it is the best $200 you could ever spend on shooting.
(3) PERCEPTION:
Invite the public to see the positive side of shooting. Invite friends to the range. As Stormbringer has done, invite the press. Those of you on club committees, arrange days where your range is open to the public for free to try shooting for themselves: the rhetoric of the evils of shooting fades to insignificance in the light of an actual positive experience shooting.
----- ----- ----
One final note, do not become complacent. I have already seen some posts along the lines of "the ban is not so bad." Get real. Complacency is a bigger enemy than the ban itself, because in this situation, it is my sincere belief that those of you who are sitting back and hoping for the best should be prepared to accept the worst.
Last edited:
