Handguns Are Necessary

No comments

I posted a comment yesterday to a blog titled "No Handguns Necessary" on the website "Scott's Diatribe". The following quote pretty much sums up his thoughts:

That being said, I am of the opinion that once the Conservatives are ousted from power, handguns of all types should indeed be banned. I see absolutely no reason for ordinary Canadians to have to own a handgun any more then not seeing the reason for them owning an assault rifle. If someone counters that farmers and such need something to shoot pests, a rifle or shotgun is of a better use to them in that regard. My relatives who are farmers all own rifles for that express purpose; none of them have ever expressed a desire to get a handgun to defend the farm from varmints. Handguns should be limited to the military and the police.


Comments that followed were of mixed reactions. Some people disagreed, other agreed with Scott's position. Many of the responses focused on having a legal reason as to why one would want/need to own a handgun. Want and need are subjective to a person's feelings. There are not a lot of reasons that are legally allowed anymore, but the few that do exist are valid. In my opinion, some of the reasons that have been blocked by our government, carrying for self defence, for example, are also valid. It is up to the feelings of the gun owner, though, as to whether they have a want or a need to own that handgun.

Scott, and his supporters, felt there were no justifiable reasons to own a handgun. That is their feeling regarding this. My feeling regarding a person owning an SUV, is that it is completely unnecessary and wasteful, but you don't see me attempting to lobby the government to ban SUV's. This is because I respect another person's right to figure out their own wants and needs and not force my opinions on them. I fully respect a person who does not agree with me, but is willing to agree that it is our fundamental right to disagree and act according to our own beliefs. Unfortunately, the Liberals, and their ilk, seem to feel it is necessary to force their belief system upon me. Force me to fit their politically correct mold. If I don't comply, then they will force me to become a criminal and face prosecution, or rather, persecution.

Believe me when I say, I'd rather become a paper criminal and face prosecution then fold into the Liberal's, or any other party's, politically correct social mold for a "good citizen". On that note, I'd like to post my comment to his article. The link to his article is above and you are free to visit it to read it in its entirety. My comment on his article follows:

I have to disagree with Scott, also. I am an owner of handguns (yes, multiple). I also have a rifle and a shotgun. I use the handguns for sport shooting, a legal reason as to why.

I am also an armed guard working for G4S Cash Services. I will not do this job if they ban handguns and I promise you that the companies would go bankrupt in our country. Just look at G4S in England, we hear of weekly robberies there. Why? They’re not armed. Here it’s been almost 7 years since we (in Edmonton) have been hit, elsewhere in the country, maybe once or twice a year. That includes Brinks and Garda, etc. It is almost non-existant.

Why is it that the government feels that the armed guard’s contents are more important than my wife or children? The money can be replaced, my family cannot. Where is the logistics in that?

I enjoy sport shooting. I don’t care that it’s only a piece of paper that I’m shooting, it’s the skill that I’m developing. It relieves stress to go to a range and shoot off a few hundred rounds. It’s not an easy task to hit a target at 25 yards with a handgun, but it’s fun, nevertheless. Why is my innocent enjoyment of a sport criminal?

Given the chance, I would indeed carry for protection during my daily life. If I carry to protect cash, why wouldn’t I for the life of my family? Surveys in the USA estimate that guns are used defensively from 2 to 3 million times a year. The only incidents you hear of, though, are ones where someone was shot and killed. It is very rare to hear of a defensive gun use where the gun is brandished and the criminal leaves, or where a criminal is wounded and lives, but the crime is stopped. Yet it happens more frequently then you’d think. I’ve collected a few good examples on my website at: http://www.tbeckett.net/articles/guns/2008/08/10/defensive-guns.xhtml. I’ll be collecting more over time through other articles.

A 5′4″, 110 lb woman, without a gun, stands little chance of defense against a 6′0″ 200 lb male who is intent on murdering or raping her. Sure, she can call the cops, but, by the time they arrive, she will likely be raped and/or dead and the criminal will be gone. That same woman with a gun could deter the crime from happening simply by brandishing the gun and calling the cops with a description. The male doesn’t stand a chance against the gun, and will likely run for his life (as he should).

For the record, I am very much in support of Libertarian ideals and am part of the Libertarian Party of Canada. I do believe that gangs would lose their grip on society if we decriminalized drugs and guns. They would have nothing to hold over people, addicts could get their wares at a pharmacy or other store and not have to rely on their drug dealer with sky high prices to get their hit (which they’re going to get in any case). If they are not paying sky high prices, they can afford it with a job, instead of by stealing and mugging others. It is no different than the Prohibition from 1900 to 1930 in various areas of Canada.

There is much evidence which supports CCW and relaxation of gun control laws. Many, many articles have been written by Dr John R Lott, who gets labeled as a “gun nut” though he didn’t even own a gun until his researched showed him the advantages to owning one. Read his books, “The Bias Against Guns”, “Straight Shooting”, and “More Guns, Less Crime”. I realize that you probably won’t, most of the gun control advocates refuse to have an open mind and read articles which contradict their views.

Before you blame me for the same thing, I have read more than one article for gun control and found it to be based on feelings or “selective” statistics instead of using all the statistics available. Either that or they either out-and-out lie to the reader or stretch the truth. Take the following example from the Coalition for Gun Control’s site [alt]:

Quote: “Law enforcement officers have queried the Canadian Firearms Registry On-line over 8.4 million times since it was launched on December 1, 1998. In 2008, it is used in average 8,603 times each day”

Truth: The “8,603 hits” figure (which previously said 6,500, and 5,000 prior to that and 2,000 prior to that) for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading. Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Therefore, the large number of hits is by design, a charade to make it seem it is working.

Now, what if we repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act? What could you do with $2,000,000,000? How about hire 26,667 more law enforcement officers (rounded up, assuming $75,000 salary)? That makes more sense than the “feel-good” actions our government is taking today. That would do more for our society than to punish our law abiding citizens. That would make me feel safer.

Believe what you want, but I find far more facts in favour of relaxed gun control than I do for the reverse. Criminals will have guns, whether they’re banned or not. Therefore, banning them from the law abiding citizen is not only not going to make a difference, but is counter productive.

I want to further comment on a few things. It is a generally accepted fact that the Firearms Registry has been a massive waste of money, time and resources in general. We could be doing far more with more front-line officers if the money was redirected. This act was nothing more than a "feel good" law that simply made it appear to the public that their elected officials were doing something other than sitting in some building arguing with each other. Again, this is a generally accepted fact.

The firearms community, on a whole, is probably larger than most people would believe. There are around 1,900,000 licensed gun owners in this country and roughly 8,000,000 registered guns. Those are only the licensed and registered ones. There are plenty of people, that I support, that own unregistered guns and are also unlicensed. They are members of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA). These are not big bad criminals, these are people who are simply "paper criminals". People who previously legally owned their guns and, due to bad law, became criminals overnight without the new licenses.

I will stress again, as I have in other articles, that the left leaning media deliberately attempts to confuse the public into believing that gun control is the magic bullet to solving crime. In fact, in John Lott's book "The Bias Against Guns", he interviewed the New York Times on an article they wrote regarding "rampage killings" published on April 13, 2000. The article titled: A Closer Look At Rampage Killings attempted to prove that gun control was the cure. In John Lott's words:

When questioned over the telephone, Ford Fessenden (the reporter at the Times who wrote the first article in its series) initially denied missing any cases. But after I went through several cases, he admitted that they had concentrated mainly on cases for the years after 1994. For the early years, they had only retrieved the "easily obtainable" cases. He said that there was nothing magical about the number 100, but it had simply seemed like a convenient number at which to stop searching.

I make a few points in this article:

  1. First and foremost, your feelings as to my needs and wants are irrelevant. I decide what I want and need and respect your right to do the same for yourself. I mind my own business, as should you.

  2. Secondly, the media does have their own agenda. You cannot believe anything the media, or anyone else for that matter, says without first researching the topic yourself and coming to your own conclusion.

  3. Thirdly, Gun Control advocates tend to base their articles and "proof" on emotions. Media, who tends to advocate gun control, will generally only publish events which will get your emotions going to back their agenda. Emotions cause "knee jerk" reactions which tend to cause more problems in the long run. Base laws on sound statistical proof and by sound I mean all inclusive, not eliminating something because it isn't easily obtainable, as in the New York Times' case. Statistics are objective and will show trends that emotions will miss.

  4. Fourth, don't assume that the knee jerk reactions are the most suitable. In this case, being gun control, take a very close look at countries that have instituted the exact reforms you are looking for. Look at how they are failing to provide safety for their citizens. The UK is a prime example of the long term effects of gun control, and Australia is not far behind them.

  5. Lastly, keep in mind Einstein's definition of insanity (Einstein defined insanity as: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results). If gun control hasn't worked in any of the other countries it has been enforced in, why would it work here?

That's all for today. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic, as always. Cheers!


Please insert the result of the arithmetical operation from the following image:

Please insert the result of the arithmetical operation from this image. =