Yeah, why might civilians ever need a gun...?
Posted on 08/20/2018 10:15:32 AM PDT by Jagermonster
Toronto -- A shootout on a summer evening in July killed a high school graduate and a 10-year-old girl. In August a sniper in an apartment complex shot dead four people, including two police officers, at sunrise.
This might sound like a familiar storyline in the United States. But the tragedies have mounted in Canada – these latest respectively in Toronto and Fredericton, New Brunswick – part of what has been dubbed a “summer of the gun” here.
Not surprisingly, it has spurred a debate on the increasing role of firearms in Canadian society. But the conversation is taking place in a newer context.
While streets in Canada are much less violent and its debate about guns much less virulent than in the US, many see an American “creep,” both in the prevalence of guns and the polarization around them. As the government weighs tighter restrictions, some are calling into question the comfort Canada has long taken in its relative peace compared with the US.
“We've been sliding in the last few years,” says Peter Donolo, who was director of communications for former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whose government introduced a now-dissolved national firearms registry for unrestricted guns. “Instead of looking smugly [at the US] we should look in the mirror.”
The evolving debate
The arms landscape in Canada has been shifting in recent years. Government figures showed 223 homicides by firearm in 2016, which was the highest number since 2005, the original “summer of the gun” when gang violence flared as it has this summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
RE: The arms landscape in Canada has been shifting in recent years. Government figures showed 223 homicides by firearm in 2016, which was the highest number since 2005, the original “summer of the gun” when gang violence flared as it has this summer.
_______________________________
OK, how strict is gun control in Canada anyway? And if it is VERY STRICT ( They don’t have the second amendment ), where did these thugs get their firearms?
We all know that the guns are at fault. It says so in all these articles. It’s gun violence, and now it’s even an epidemic of gun violence! These nasty guns are catching some germ that makes them hop up and shoot people. Wow, if only Canada and Chicago had strict gun control... oh wait.
“This might sound like a familiar storyline in the United States.” Familiar in chiraq every weekend perhaps. No worries though, I’ sure justine in all over it.
Same as they claim with Mexico, as if militarized organized crime gangs are buying sporting rifles from American stores in huge numbers instead of getting automatic weapons from South America.
I wonder how much of the recent uptick in shootings can be attributing to the Canadian importation of refugees or other migrants?
Yeah, why might civilians ever need a gun...?
These people are so transparent. I remember when we got a raft of stories about how American Guns were causing the violence in Mexico. Then sure enough they went after the Second Amendment here because of how it affects other nations. Then we find out Obama was allowing guns to go to Mexico. Looks like they’re going to try the same Playbook again, Americans need to lose their gun rights to protect Canadians.
These homogeneous lilly white Canadatards are about to get a steaming hot mug of ‘demographic change’.
I suggest that the writer obtain a copy of a 1976 position paper on the subject that the Canadian Chiefs of Police published, as it made comments like “the licensing, serialization, and registration of firearms will not act as a deterrent to violence and will not necessarily identify the person perpetrating the crime” and also “cessation of firearms sales will not remove them from those who can do violence”. Seems like law enforcement officials back then in both Canada and the United States had a much more realistic view on firearms and crime than political and media elite of today.
“’We’ve been sliding in the last few years,” says Peter Donolo, who was director of communications for former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whose government introduced a now-dissolved national firearms registry for unrestricted guns. “Instead of looking smugly [at the US] we should look in the mirror.’”
Maybe this person should also consult Wikipedia and compare the homicide rates of U.S. states like Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and others to the immediately neighbouring Canadian provinces and see that that these states tend to have the most casual of firearms laws in the U.S. (like VT, NH, and ME) and have homicide rates very close to or (in a few instances lower) than places like New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia.
It’s intellectual laziness among reporters and others that contribute greatly to the great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding in this debate in both countries.
“There is a bit of mythology that grew that somehow the gun registry was fatal for the Liberal Party’s electoral chances,” says Mr. Donolo. “And I think that’s one reason in my view that [Trudeau] hasn’t been very aggressive on the gun control front.”
Here’s another chuckler. When Jean Chretien forced through the registry in 1995, it helped to destroy Liberal support (particularly in the rural areas) in the Ontario provincial election in June of that year, as Progressive Conservative leader Mike Harris was publicly very much against it. A little under two years later in May 1997, Chretien came to within five seats of losing his majority in Parliament, as the Reform Party gained those few more seats from the Liberals in the West and the old federal Progressive Conservatives did so as well in the rural areas of the Maritimes and opposition to the long gun registry was at a fever pitch in both these areas. And it was only likely the split between Reform and Progressive Conservative votes in Ontario that kept the 1997 results from being that much worse for the Liberals over the registry.
The continued bad news for the registry certainly did not help the Liberals much leading up to their ultimate defeat in 2006 (and the real nasty one in 2011). The fact that it continued to cost more and more to the taxpayer and delivered basically nothing in terms of directly dealing with the criminal or tragic misuse of firearms and also that it’s ballooning costs were reported to have taken funding away from other important crime fighting initiatives. Also that it was apparently plagued with all sorts of errors and problems in terms of data accuracy and accessibility. All of this continued until it’s abolition in about 2011-2012 (after the Conservatives finally won a majority and the Liberals suffered a very nasty defeat).
Granted the writer is American and likely not as fully tuned into Canadian political affairs and recent history, but it’s a little surprising that they simply took this person’s comment at their word.
A New photo of
An Age old Problem.
“These homogeneous lilly white Canadatards are about to get a steaming hot mug of ‘demographic change’.”
Enjoy, suckers.
L
From the same place all the thugs in Chicago do - funny how it seems that the "outside the violence areas supply chains" never seem to be suffering the same wanton violence...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.