Why not Ban X Instead?

A Canadian friend of mine, Miss W, came up with this out of the blue (Okay it turns out it was from reading this at Popehat):

"Oddly enough, I think a good argument against the gun control crowd is smoking. Smoking causes  vastly  more deaths than firearms do. The US loses about 6 500 people to guns in a year. And 443 000 to cigarettes. If you're gonna ban one..."

I pointed out  a similar argument could be made about Alcohol too. Which she agreed with. Though this doesn't even get into the precrime and collective punishment stuff Further:

"And cigarettes really *do* serve no purpose, save the pleasure of the owner. (And probably kill more people with secondhand alone than guns do) Basically, it's a question of which you're gonna do - ban things because they cause harm? Or let them out there because the incursion on freedoms is a greater harm?"

Or if you want more apples versus apples well..
In 2011  323 people were murdered in the US by someone using a rifle. That same year  496 were murdered with hammers and clubs.

Huh. But that won't keep the gun grabbers from trying to DO Something.
Such as these bills they've filed so far.

Should definitely contact your reps if you haven't already. It's quick and easy.  For example Indiana's Senators can be found here.

And here's the order of importance:  "Visit personally, fax, e-mail, call, formal written letter. Formal written letters used to be the best, but that changed with the Anthrax scare, and now it take forever to get snail mail through."

Why the Rise of Gun Rights?

Sebastian has an open thread in the change from the high water mark of the Gun Control movement to the present where they are scattered and demoralized.

The discussion in the comments is fascinating.  We know Gun Rights are on a hearty upswing but as to why, well.. there seem to be many reasons.

The spread of Shall Issue to the vast majority of the country, the spread of self defense as a reason to own a gun, the accessibility if information via the internet,  the re-normalization of guns via (video games and all of the previous)  seem to be major factors.

In personal experience, I was in Buffalo for a wedding.  And I found that May Issue was loathed there.  Even by the "hipsterish" folks.  As long as the person you were talking to was not a red-diaper baby level (with one big exception) people seemed affronted by the idea of "The Man"  telling them they couldn't have a gun. Also discussing the pre-1986 aspect of machine gun ownership boggled them. No no you can't own that machine gun it's too new, here have this older one.

However, that big exception:  Canadians.  The Fudd is alive in them.  They're all about the "Sporting Purpose"   so Pa-Pa's hunting rifle or Me-Ma's shotgun is just fine, but a handgun or something with a normal magazine?  Well... then you gotta be looking for trouble.  It goes to the "Why do you need a gun?"

In Canada,  "Because Fuck you that's why!"  is considered too impolite.  And "Because I want to defend myself" is seen as too aggressive. Hell I remember growing up  (NJ in the 90's)  that you couldn't argue that people should have a gun unless it was for historical or hunting or sport purposes.

That's what banning carry and self defense does.

In Canada you can't use a gun to defend yourself.  Their safe storage laws make it a crime to defend your home with a gun, and you can't get a carry permit. Well unless you're connected.  Canada's Carry Permits are a bit harder to get than NYC's but they exist.

But the point is that if you live in an area where people can't use guns to defend themselves in or out of the home then you have turned guns into just a somewhat dangerous hobby.   As Weerd has said before:

Yep, as soon as we only frame gun ownership in a "Sporting Purposes" test, we've lost, because guns indeed are dangerous. We not only have people killed and injured during the sports, but we have people abusing guns and harming and committing crimes.

To weigh those things against the fun of hunting and sport shooting is simply selfish and foolish, and if that's the case there is no reason to NO ban guns.

As soon as we add self-defense and the protection from tyranny, suddenly the argument changes greatly. 

I think,  adding self defense and protection from tyranny was a big factor in changing the argument.   Note that the places that have gun control "success"  work by taking away self defense from the common man.

Germany, Italy,  Canada,  NYC... the dirty secret is that those places do allow CCW.  Just not for the commoners.   And I think that is a difference  as many Americans (especially those in the ~30%  ~10 May/No Issue states) realize with jealous eyes towards their freerer brethren.

I know that in Buffalo itself there's a big blame NYC/Bloomberg angle where they lay the State's Nannying stupidities on the downstate folks.

"Legitimate Rape": Horrifying War on Women. "Legitimate Need to Carry a Gun": Common Sense

Let's start with a meme of Abstinence only swimming and water safety. Haha. Denying life jackets because it encourages reckless behavior.

It's a funny point. Risk is a part of life, and the State trying to make you "better" for your own good is tyrannical.

But that link came from a French Canadian who is verymuch in support of gun control. Meaning he thinks "abstinence only" is perfectly valid with guns.

So again:
Abstinence only Sex Ed: Insane.
Absoinance only Water Safety: A funny joke.
Abstinence only Self Defense: Progressive.

Replace drowning with "gun deaths", and you see the same nonsense: the gun will be taken away from you, having a gun in the house makes it more likely that you'll get shot, if you carry a gun you must be inviting trouble.

The whole "Nobody should have guns" sounds awfully familiar don't it?


Here you have a person that demands a woman should be able to abort a fetus conceived when she was raped. A gruesome situation, but fair enough. You want to be compassionate to the woman that was raped. Even to the cost of the potential citizen of the fetus, but just focus on the woman.

Because, the same person then demands that this woman be forbidden from carrying a gun....

Something that could have prevented said rape.

Yes, if you fight back you might not win. That doesn't mean it was your fault that you were attacked, but not fighting back drops the odds of winning down to zero. Don't depend on the kindness and self-restraint of someone willing to break the most fundamental parts of the social compact.

And the right tools really help improve your odds. Especially if your attacker is a foot taller and fifty pounds heavier. At the very least a gun in the right hands would have put the attacker and the potential victim on an equal footing force wise.

Or is killing rapists and having the risk of more guns in the hands of regular people too... "socially upsetting"?

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have more dead rapists than more rape victims.

Here's the saddest part. Canada does have Conceal Carry on the books. And one of the provisions for their Authorization to Carry licence is to enable women that have been victimized to be able to carry guns for self defense.

A permit has never been issued on those grounds.

I'll repeat that. Despite there being a Canadian Carry Permit, despite it having a provision to enable victimized women to defend themselves. A permit has never been issued on those grounds.

Apparently that's how it works in Canada:

In Canada, unless you're an armed car guard or a trapper, to gain an "Authorization to Carry" you would have to make a strong case that your life or that of a loved one was in imminent danger from one or more other individuals, that police protection was not sufficient in the circumstances, and that your possession of the firearm could reasonably be justified for protecting you or your loved ones from death or grievous bodily harm.

So burley he-men like trappers and security gaurds can carry but women cannot?
No war-on-women there.

If Akin is so evil for not wanting rape victims to get abortions, how evil are all the gun control people that don't want rape victims to carry guns? Or potential rape victims, or regular people who don't want to be victimized?

Or is that not "legitimate self defense"?

Is suck it up, tough it out, and think of England only a compassionate stance when talking about the rape itself? Does it only only become barbaric when telling the woman to suffer though the ensuing pregnancy?


Carry your damn guns.

Let's make Medical care as Universal as Public Schools!

Up in Canada.

There are two tiers of men with advanced prostate cancer in Ontario: Those who get access to a remarkable drug through private insurance, and those who get a death sentence.

The grim news is often delivered at the London Regional Cancer Program to men whose shoulders sag and jaws drop when told Ontario’s Health Ministry has for 15 months refused to pay for a medication covered by every other Canadian province.

“There’s shock, fury and dismay,” said oncologist Kylea Potvin. “Everyone thinks we have this wonderful universal health care system, but this is absolutely not the case. We’ve increasingly become a two-tier health care system where if you have money, you have access.” . . .

Now note this is exactly the kind of situation progressives like Mr. A propose. Sure he rants about the evils of a "mix and match, public and private" medical care. But when pushed he goes right to the socialism for needs, capitalism for wants and that medical care should be like public schools, where everyone can get something for "free" and if you want more you can pay more.

Well there's his dream right there.

Via Glenn Reynolds who notes on why the government mandarins just don't give prostate cancer victims the same priority as others: "(1) They’re men, and nobody cares as much if men die. (2) On average, they’re past their earning years and if they die earlier it helps the pension problem. And men who live too long are just a burden on society anyway."

The Sweet Sweet Tears of the Antis.

And as an added bonus it's Canadian Statists that are crying.

Good start Canada, now get to working on actually be able to use your guns for self defense.

Comment(s) of the Day

We'll start because I like my ego with a reply to a comment of mine on Weer'd's:

There’s some positive thinking, Jack! That puts a smile on my face!

That crippled tyrant did have a positive side-effect!

You'll have to go to the link for the context.


Weer'd on Uncle showing off his son's first time firing an AR

Love that video!

Also this is impossible without a collapsible stock which is illegal in Massachusetts.

Making children smile is illegal here. This is the purpose of their laws.

And on the former Snowflakes in Hell on if the Canadian Long gun registry represent a bridge too far?

Will this repeal show Canadian gun owners that they have an option other than keeping their heads down or trying to accomodate with the antis? Well to use Rocky logic, this shows the Gun Control movement can bleed. That they can be beaten.

And another great comment by Weer'd:

Also, speaking as a former anti, the AWB was the big dumb lie that got me to question EVERYTHING the anti-rights movement has pushed.

The AWB seems like a good idea if you believe the guns are more deadly and dangerous than ban compliant guns.

Mandatory permits and training and registration sounds like a great idea if you believe these things lower, or solve crime, or prevent accidents.

Gun-free Zones seem like a good idea if it saves lives.

Of course data shows all of this is crap, and the backers of the laws are liars, and that converts pretty hard.

People don’t like being lied to.

An example. I have a Canadian gunnie friend and what really turned him from a "guns are neat but sensible gun control is sensible" to "Gun Control is a pack of stupid lies and jackbooted thuggery" was this story.

With that he realized that no only were safe storage laws BS that the police used to punish someone who dared defend himself. He's made jokes about a revolver covered in cable locks and trigger locks as being "Candian Compliant". And talks about how Canadaians do have a right to self defense despite what the police think.

Much of that came from the realization that he was being lied to by people that found him contemptible. People don't like to be played the fool. Which is part of why they get so invested in sunken costs.

In other, more enlightened countries...

You can be arrested, strip searched, have police search your house, and have Child Welfare sent against you... if you 4 year old child draws a picture of you holding a gun.

Doesn't matter if you don't actually own a firearm. The drawing is enough. Especially if you've got a record, due process what's that?

So we've got the teachers overreacting, the police "just doing their job", and all to find...

And there was a gun … a clear plastic toy gun that shoots soft plastic biodegradable BBs and retails for around $20 at Walmart.

Bravo. It's interesting to see that the teachers can say whatever they want and the police just have to follow orders. Nice work if you can get it.

Next up they'll go after the guy who's son says he owns an illegal rocketship, they have some strong pictorial evidence and hard testimony supporting that case.

Well it'll teach that little girl an important lesson. Authority figures are frightened, panicky idiots, and if you want to make it through school turn off your imagination and keep your head down.

Heaven help the Canadian with guns and a firearms permit, who has a child that likes to draw and has an imagination.

Speaking of Canada.

Sebastian links to the Successful House vote to repeal the Canadian Long Gun Registry.

Some notes from the article.

Bernier said that the Ecole Polytechnique shooting — the Montreal Massacre that provided the political impetus for the long-gun registry — could not have been prevented.

“The weapon used at Ecole Polytechnique was registered,” he said. “The fact of registering long guns does not permit us to fight efficiently against crime.”

Yes it's like registering doesn't do anything to stop the criminal element.

And here's a rollout of "gun crime"

Clement was asked how victims of gun crime and their families, who will assemble on Parliament Hill for the vote, would feel to know MPs are popping champagne in celebration.

“It’s important to note we’re on the side of the victims, including those of gun crime,” he said. “We’re with people who have been dealt a terrible situation, a tragedy because of the bad guys.”

And note that the vote to end the registry basically came from one party. Which does not bode well given Canada's 3.5 party system. There's also that in a parliamentary system it's much easier for the majority party to do what it wants.

Almost all opposition MPs voted against the legislation — except for New Democrats Bruce Hyer and John Rafferty, who sided with the government.

...

Candice Hoeppner, whose private member’s bill to abolish the registry was defeated in 2010 after a narrow vote, singled out NDP members who pledged to their constituents to vote with the government, only to change sides and vote to save the registry at the last moment.

She named NDP MPs Charlie Angus, Nikki Ashton, Alex Atamanenko, Dennis Bevington, Nathan Cullen, Claude Gravelle and Carol Hughes as those who went against the wishes of their constituents.

“Opposition members cannot be let off the hook for saying one thing and doing another,” she said. “All of these members should know that many of their colleagues were fired by their real bosses: law abiding Canadians who are voting.”

And then you see the "effective gun control" line being trotted out.

“These proposals ignore the concerns of victims of gun violence who are mourning their dead or tending to their crippling injuries: this must never happen again,” she said. “We must do all in our power to prevent this carnage, including supporting effective gun control.”

Coalition members, including YWCA Canada CEO Paulette Senior and Alexa Conradi, president of the Quebec Women Federation, excoriated the government for its “ideological” devotion to ending the registry.

“The safety of women must take precedence over a small ‘bureaucratic hassle,’ ” Conradi said. “The decision by the government to delete the existing data can only be described as a punitive measure that has little to do with privacy and much to do with ideology.”

Yes, it's not like the data in the registry could ever be abused. But no, having your property being capriciously confiscated by the state, that's just a "hassle".

And another interesting thing, in every single example of "gun crime" an anti gives in that article... the registry had done nothing to prohibit or help trace the weapon. In the whole article there's no example of a success story or the registry working or doing anything to reduce crime.

Which is to be expected. It doesn't matter that the registry has failed to do anything in reducing crime, what's important is the intent in passing it and the symbolism of the scheme itself.

Unfortunately, even among the pro-gun side in the article there's not a word of self defense. It's all about sport shooters and hunters. That's a shame because to ignore self defense is the key aspect to firearms rights. Without it you're stuck arguing on the anti's terms.

Defensive gun uses are generally the elephant in the room for the Anti-Rights types, as in an argument where pro-gun people can only frame their gun ownership in terms of sport and collecting, that argument will ALWAYS lose, as no matter what as the negatives will be the abuses of guns in society, and the positives will be fun-and-games. No rational person will chose the gun. But if you frame guns as a tool to protect innocent lives and resist tyranny, and cite the number of lives SAVED by personal firearms EVERYDAY, and compare that with the innocent lives harmed by them, well there is no contest.

But if Canada can get rid of the Long Gun Registry, it's evidence that other countries can roll back gun control too and that the ratchet does not go just one way. Maybe one day Canada can have their own CCW "revolution".

Sugar: they Ban because they Can.

Prohibitionism ahoy!
Those neo Puritans sure hate the idea of someone somewhere having fun and making the 'wrong' choicer.



The Nannystate defined. Sugar is just like cigarettes and alcohol and we need massive taxes to "nudge" you proles into the right decisions. Which makes sense that these social engineers laud $11 for a pack of smokes and wish it were higher.

And bonus for first world problems and the bright idea of spiking food prices.

It's like how gun control is about control.

Via Weer'd

Safe Self Defense Storage

It looks like Canada's got a handy catch 22 going on.

Sure self defense is technically legal, but if you use a gun to defend yourself they'll get you with an "Unsafe Storage" violation, even if you actually did have your weapon "safely" stored and somehow had enough time to unlock your safe and make ready.

Witness this case:

Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm? Mr. Thomson is the Port Colborne, Ont., man currently standing trial in a Welland, Ont. courtroom after he and his home were attacked by firebombers in August, 2010. (That's correct, in the topsy-turvy world of Canadian criminal justice, Mr. Thomson and his home were the ones attacked and yet he is the one on trial.)

Having dropped other more serious charges - such as dangerous use of a firearm - because they concluded there was no reasonable chance of winning a conviction, Crown prosecutors have nonetheless bullied ahead with unsafe storage charges against Mr. Thomson.

Nevermind that Mr. Thomson has proven that he could have unlocked his safe and loaded his guns in the given time frame. The Canadian government has decided to see fit to punish a man for defending his house from attacking arsonists.

Via Clayton Cramer.

I suppose they don't want to send the message that self defense is acceptable. Because then Canadians might start using their guns to defend themselves on their property, and even worse demand carry permits be given to normal citizens, instead of an elite few.

As Weer'd said Self Defense and protection against tyranny are the main reasons for firearms ownership.

It's telling that in Canada they use the latter to punish the former.

Right now, the Canadian government would prefer guns merely be hunting and sporting implements.
It makes them that much easier to ban.

At least there's been some progress up there.

Oh, Canada

So pro rights people are trying to scrap the Long Guns registry up in Canada.

Now some content that sure the registry ran massively over budget but at least it tracked if a gun used in a crime came from a registered owner, except... it didn't:

Please note,” Statistics Canada wrote in response to an access to information request filed by the National Firearms Association, “that the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey does not collect information on licensing of either guns or gun owners related to the incidents of violent crime reported by police.” Nor does StatsCan’s annual homicide survey “collect information on the registration status of the firearm used to commit a homicide.

This raises the question: Why did it take so long for the government to begin ridding Canada of the horribly expensive, unjustifiably intrusive federal gun registry? If no one in Ottawa had any systematic way of tracking whether or not Canadians suspected of committing a violent gun crime were licensed to own a gun and had registered the gun being used, then they had no way of knowing whether registration and licensing were having a positive impact on crime.

So instead of verifying that the registration scheme was even serving it's indented purpose... they just ran on "faith", as Joe Huffman puts it.

So if the Canadian government is not even tracking if their registration scheme reduces crime what are they doing with it?

Banning 22's that look like AK-47's.

Yeah... kind of sounds like the registration scheme didn't work as advertised and is now being used to well... confiscate weapons.

Say it again: Registration leads to confiscation.

Dumb Gun laws know no Borders.

So up in Canada the RMCP has decided to spend what is potentially the last days of their long gun registry by ramping up the spite.

And going after those eeeevilll "AK-Variants". And by Variants I mean 22 caliber long rifle plinkers styled after an AK47.

A gun registry being abused by petty bureaucrats to enact confiscation? Say it ain't so!

By changing classifications now, the RCMP will retain records of these owners even after the long-gun-registry data is destroyed.

Friedman says activist bureaucrats at the Canadian Firearms Program are using what little time remains to move more firearms into the restricted and prohibited categories.

"Remember, once the gun registry is eliminated, the RCMP will lose their ability to identify, target and harass law-abiding owners on non-restricted firearms," he said. "They only took notice of (the AP80) when the gun registry is in its death throes."

Spite. If you give agents of the state a power they WILL abuse it.

And showing how dumb such regs are. The VZ 58 is not Restricted.

Yeah it's not considered an AK variant! Yes, that is true. As the VZ58 has a different action mechanism and is made in a different country.

But functionally it fires a 7.62 by 39. Same caliber as the AK47, which puts it a lot closer to the Ak47 than the 22lr AP80 which the RCMP has seen fit to ban.

Oh and for some irony look at this on Armi Jager (the AM80's mfg) wiki page

The gun manufacturer was active since the early 1960s, manufacturing semi-automatic rimfire sporting rifles and replica "Western" revolvers. Later it evolved to rimfire and small-caliber centerfire (.32 ACP) firearms patterned after the look of military rifles which at the time were difficult or illegal to own for civilians in Italy.

Of course the Canadian government said nuts to that and decided to ban 'em anyway.

Via Uncle