The article offers this interesting passage:

“Some Canadians are alarmed that registered firearms users such as (Dan) Styles have legal access to such weapons, which are considered ‘civilianized’ models of modern military-assault rifles. Although these high-powered rifles are seldom used in crimes in Canada, many gun-control advocates want them banned in the name of public safety.”

This sounds familiar doesn’t it? The guns are “seldom used in crimes” but in the “name of public safety” the anti-gun zealots want them banned! We also note that once again, the adjective “high-powered” is also used erroneously to suggest these weapons are even more sinister.

The article notes:

“According to the most recent statistics from the Canadian Firearms Centre, there are more than 7.6 million registered firearms in Canada, or about one gun per four Canadians. More than 1.8 million Canadians — about six per cent of the population — have valid gun licences, with the largest concentrations in Atlantic Canada and the North. The Yukon stacks up as the most gun-loving area of the country, with more than 84 guns per 100 people.”

This piece also explains how firearms such as the AK-47 are officially banned, but notes “Czech-made CZ 858 Tactical rifle, which appears almost identical to the infamous Russian-made AK-47 assault rifle and shoots the same 7.62-calibre NATO bullet,” is legal in Canada.

In other words things north of the border aren’t all that different.

“Criminal record checks, 28-day waiting periods, the long-gun registry: none has done anything to stem Canadian firearm homicide rates, according to a new study by an emergency-medicine academic.”

This is an interesting bit of information and we’ll be fascinated to see how the media in the United States responds, that is if at all.

“Taking on the gun lobby is an exercise in futility. No politician – Democrat or Republican – will risk having the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) campaign against them at election time.”

In that one sentence Diamond fails to make his point in his entire column. What does the NRA have to do with the “Canadian” system? Only at the end of his op-ed does he note:

“Hopefully someday, as a way to reduce gun violence in this country, Congress will find the courage to follow Canadian law which has no loopholes for unregistered guns.”

And here we circle back to a point that Diamond and many other anti-gun zealots fail to understand. The NRA is powerful because it is how the people vote. Congress doesn’t lack courage, Congress acts in response of what the people want.

So what Diamond and others of his ilk really mean is that they want a Congress to say, “To hell with the will of the people. Banning guns would be better.”

But what about Nazi Germany? What about the Soviet Union? How about North Korea or Cambodia? How about China as an example? China today has laws that ban individual gun ownership, but yet criminal syndicates not only have guns but they have gun making factories that churn out AK-47 clones!

And how about Mexico? That one seems surprising to leave off the list. Private gun ownership is tightly controlled in Mexico, and yet the criminals there have no problem getting guns.

Did banning alcohol turn the United States dry in 1919? That didn’t seem to work. So why would gun control?

“Undercover investigators have exposed how easy it is in the United States to buy high-powered weapons — even when the buyer admits to being unable to pass a background check.”

This story, like most we’re seeing, doesn’t bother to point out that private sales don’t require a background check. But we like how the paper adds in the term “high-powered weapons.” Again, “high-powered” is not – and should never be – a blanket term for all guns. Not all guns are high-powered.

This story also attempts to make it seem that laws were broken at the gun show in Tucson, and the fact is whether you like it or not, laws were NOT broken. Of course this point is never actually made clear in the report.

Police Sgt. Devon Lambert said Deleon sustained bites to her head, neck and face. According to the police report, Deleon was walking down the street when the dog attacked her for no apparent reason, knocking her down. She was taken to the hospital and released later the same day.

The shooter, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, may have saved Angelita’s life.

“If he hadn’t come along, it could have resulted in her death,” Lambert said.

The police followed a blood trail which led them to where the pit bull mix had retreated to. Animal Care Services picked up the dog and according to shelter spokeswoman Lisa Norwood, it was immediately euthanized.

The dog had a collar but police haven’t been able to find its owner.

It is interesting to note that in places like Texas, citizens can protect themselves and others from life threatening dangers with firearms. In a country like Canada, which has draconian gun control laws, they can’t. What has Canada done about pit bulls? It has banned them. Not all pit bulls are dangerous and not all dog attacks are made by pit bulls.

A person should be free to own any breed of dog they want. No matter how many freedoms a government takes away from its citizens, it can’t protect everyone from every danger. Let the individual exercise his or her freedom of ownership. When a people are willing to give up rights because that’s what the majority wants, there is a tyranny of the majority that tries to cookie-cut everyone with the same mold. I prefer to hold onto my individual idiosyncrasies rather than be absorbed into the collective.   

In 1966 New Jersey adopted what advocates called, “the most stringent gun law” in the nation. Two years later the state murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. In 1968 the state of Hawaii passed similar laws, even though its murder rate was only 2.4 per 100,000. By 1977 the murder rate tripled to 7.2%. In recent times we have seen similar increases in places like the City of Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Nearly 20% of all U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population. New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. have some of the strictest restrictions on handguns but the highest murder rates. Law-abiding but unarmed citizens are open season for the criminal.

Other countries have had similar results. When Canada passed stronger gun control laws in 1977, the murder rate stayed the same while armed robbery and burglary increased. Violent crime increased in Taiwan and Jamaica when handguns were banned. And as we have seen in recent years in China, a country which bans all private ownership of firearms, there has been a rampant increase in the murder of school children by maniacs with knives.

Strict gun control laws have lead to two effects; increased criminal bravado and fewer criminal justice resources allocated to prosecuting real criminals. Violent criminals tend to pick weak targets, just like prey animals hunt the sickly, young and old. Knowing that a target is unarmed will make the criminal bolder. A Jack the Ripper armed with a handgun won’t be afraid to stalk and visa sect an unarmed Bruce Lee.

When strict firearms laws are passed, it is often otherwise law-abiding citizens that get prosecuted. Using an illegal firearm to protect your business or home makes you a criminal for defending yourself. A Chicago judge who held court dedicated to trying gun law offences testified: “ The most striking experience I can take away from the Gun Court … us … the kinds of people that appear there as defendants…. This is their very first arrest of any kind. Many of them are old people; many of them are shopkeepers, persons who have been previous victims of violent crime.”

If the state can’t protect its citizens from violent criminals and law abiding citizens can’t protect themselves, respect for the law and government decrease. If this reaches a low enough level, people have little choice. They must either flee the jurisdiction or take matters into their own hands. And this leads to the unwanted consequence of vigilante justice, where there are no constitutional protections for the accused. Heated anger replaces the cool logic of due process which is meant to protect the innocent from crimson emotion.

According to the story:

“The NRA has been involved in efforts to scrap the Canadian registry for a decade, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported today.”

The Tories have maintained that there is no link, and regardless, isn’t this just another example of the people voting in politicians and those politicians passing laws based on the will of the people? This anti-NRA sentiment is almost comical. Once again, it is described as some sinister global cabal that is intent on making the world dangerous. Could it just be that voters in Canada don’t want to be bothered with a long gun registration?

Taser X3 multi-shot ECD

Canadian Judge Robert Sewell, denied Taser International Inc.’s (TASR) request to reject the previous findings of a governmental inquiry. A public inquiry into stun gun safety began in May 5, 2008 after the 2007 death of a man in a Vancouver Airport. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) shot the man multiple times with a stun gun and he later died. The inquiry report provided evidence that stun guns also called conducted energy weapons which disable potential targets with up to 50,000 volts of electricity can be lethal.

“It is quite clear to me that there were presentations made to the commissioner by medical experts,” said British Columbia Supreme Court judge Sewell,” and others to the effect that such weapons can cause serious harm and even death in exceptional circumstances.”

Taser has responded with its own safety documents showing its stun guns have never caused any deaths. The company has complained that the Canadian court findings are affecting sales. Unlike the U.S. where tasers are not considered firearms and are legal in most states, in Canada tasers are prohibited weapons which can only be used by law enforcement. Across Canada, 73 law enforcement agencies were using stun guns by the end of 2008.  The RCMP themselves had 2,800 Tasers at their disposal. 

Taser is arguing that the governmental findings which they disagree with have pushed the RCMP to develop stricter policies which are reducing sales. In May, 2010 the RCMP established new rules related to stun guns that permit their use only if a person is causing bodily harm or has potential to imminently do harm. A recent watch dog group released figures showing a 30 percent reduction in stun gun use by the RCMP since 2008 when the formal inquiry began.  Figures like these validate Taser’s argument of lost sales. In 2009, 78 percent of its total sales were from the U.S. while 22 percent or some $22.7 million came from international sales.  In there 2009 annual report Taser stated that 2009 saw significant orders from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. If this court ruling affects the bottom line it will likely have a small impact given that Canadian sales represent only a small percent of Taser’s total sales. 

Taser Official Website