Friday, May 25, 2007

It doesn't matter who's wrong or right. Just Ban it. Just Ban it.

Tragically, a 15-year-old boy is dead after he was shot in the chest at a Toronto school on Wednesday, allegedly in response to a fight over fireworks. While the killer escapes into the fog, our governors tragically respond by concentrating on the instrument rather than the aggressor who pulled the trigger.

"We have seen too many shootings result in too many funerals for our young people," Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote in an open letter to federal party leaders, urging them to push through proposed criminal justice legislation and implement a "real ban" on handguns.

"Handguns are designed for one purpose only – to shoot people – and should have no place in Ontario or anywhere in Canada."

Handguns are already severely restricted in Canada, and a handgun registry has been in force for more than 60 years.
A rather typical response that the sheep are used to hearing when something bad happens: BAN IT, as if that will prevent criminals from obtaining contraband materials. Kitchen knives and sterling silver cutlery have more than one purpose, but such instruments could be used as a dangerous weapon. Should the government create a cutlery registry, or just ban all forms of cutlery all together?
The value of allowing handgun collections should be reconsidered, said Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant.

"There's got to be a balance between people's property rights and personal responsibilities to others," he said.
The only "balance between people's property rights and personal responsibilities" is for each and every individual to mind their own business and leave other people's stuff alone. Self-proclaimed keepers of public morality like Bryant help to destroy this balance by removing a person's right to protect their property should the need arise.
Toronto Mayor David Miller, who voiced his support for an outright ban, went a step further and recommended that handgun regulation should become an international issue.

"We know that there's two sources of guns used in Toronto: one is guns that are stolen from collectors, and the other is guns that come from the U.S.," Miller said.
If all else fails, blame it on George Bush.

Also appearing at Dust My Broom.

8 comments:

eng said...

Do you support "shall issue" type concealed carry laws?

Lisa said...

I don't think the government has any right to interfere in peaceable citizens lives, so the answer would be yes, though I don't require the sanction of arbitrary laws to justify potential solutions of personal defense.

Jake said...

Dalton McWimpy is using this tragedy to score cheap political points for the election. He obviously could care dick all about this teen who was gunned down at school. We haven't even found the suspect yet and they jump to preconceived conclusions about firearms.

Supporting gun control is a tactic left wing politicians use during elections as a means to get the urban vote. Paul Martin tried the same tactic in the last federal election and it backfired miserably as he is no longer in office. The media said it looked opportunistic as his announcement on banning handguns happened immediately after another teen was murdered in downtown Toronto.

As McGuinty's poll numbers have stalled as of recent due to the OLG and Govt. Grant Scandals, he is trying to revive his political fortunes as cheaply as possible. I comes as no surprise as I expect nothing less for him.

eng said...

I don't think the government has any right to interfere in peaceable citizens lives, so the answer would be yes
Actually that sounds more like you would not want any laws about concealed carry at all, not even to require a permit.


I don't require the sanction of arbitrary laws to justify potential solutions of personal defense

Where did we hear this lack of requiring legal sanction before? Oh, yes, it was your spinning of some "glotard rally" speaker's comments into threats of violence.

Is your "don't require the sanction of arbitrary laws" also simply over the top rhetoric? It sounds more like anarchy, in which you will obey the laws you wish. Anyone who opposes you is basically attacking you, necessitating whatever "potential solutions" you see fit.

Lisa said...

Eng says:

Is your "don't require the sanction of arbitrary laws" also simply over the top rhetoric? It sounds more like anarchy, in which you will obey the laws you wish. Anyone who opposes you is basically attacking you, necessitating whatever "potential solutions" you see fit.

Why do you suppose I would selectively obey laws because I believe the government should not have a monopoly on guns? It's my business if I want to carry a gun, so long as it's only used to defend myself or shoot at tin cans.

As for "over the top rhetoric", and the like, you asked a question and I provided you with my answer. If you don't agree fine, but since you haven't given your reasons for disagreeing with me, I guess I'm left to conclude that "anyone who opposes you is basically attacking you."

eng said...

Yes, you gave an answer to my question about concealed carry, I see validity in both sides of that question. For some reason, perhaps your avatar, I assumed you would be in favour.

Then you stated you don't require legal sanction for your personal defence solutions. That to me sounds like selectively obeying laws. You even said "It's my business if I want to carry a gun". Now you did put a condition on it, "only for defense and shooting tin cans", but these are your personal conditions, and subject to change by you. Either way, your statement says to me you would break the law and carry a gun if you choose.

My reason for disagreeing with you is that you are saying you will break the law. I disagree with lawbreaking.

In earlier threads there was concern expressed about a speaker at a climate change rally referring to "any means necessary". My read of it was that it was over the top rhetoric. Others here appeared to take it as a real threat that the speaker and his friends would take the law into their own hands.

You have just stated you would take the law into your own hands as well.

Lisa said...

There is all the difference in the world between defending oneself against an aggressor and threatening innocent people with violence - which is what the eco-terrorist was suggesting. It's ridiculous for you to claim that I might 'take the law into my own hands' because I take issue with some of the existing laws.

Do you feel that any law that is passed is just and worth following?

Let's look at marijuana for example. Is it wrong to smoke marijuana because the government says so, or is there something inherently wrong about smoking weed, or is it none of the government's business? And if we agree that it is none of the government's business, then that law is unjust and if I smoke weed, I may be a lawbreaker, but it does not follow that I am an immoral person.

eng said...

Did the "eco-terrorist" actually make a specific threat of violence? Or did you simply choose to see it that way? And what stops you from "protecting" yourself from the perceived threat with the deadly force you have (illegally) decided to allow yourself to carry?

Your logic that it is ok to protect yourself even if it goes outside the law could be just as easily used by the "eco-terrorist". He could say he is protecting his very life in the future by killing you, since your actions threaten that future.

In both cases, it is taking the law into one's own hands.

The marijuana law comparison is not a valid one. The drug laws are intended to protect you from your own foolishness. You can certainly make the case that the government has no business there.

In contrast, the gun laws are not to protect you from yourself, they are there to protect everyone else who might be in range of your weapons.