We are better than the Antis

We as firearm owners are better then the antis and Liberals. We have convictions, believe in self sufficiency, carry on tradition and believe in the responsibility of ones own actions. I hold myself accountable from everything in my life. I don't expect or want the government to take care of me or my family. I believe that when you reach adult hood and become a contributing member of society you should own a firearm.


Why is it that Liberals don't believe in these things. They want a government to nurture and care for them like a new born baby. They want to be told what they should do, what they shouldn't, and when they should do it. They don't want to be an individual for fear that they may fail. The don't believe another human being is capable of owning a firearm without using it to harm another. Maybe the antis and Liberals are the ones that aren't responsible or mentally stable enough to own a firearm, therefore they don't understand how another individual could be. Maybe to be a anti you have to be crazy?


What I don't understand is a individual such as Wendy Cukier can press her ideas on others in a society or country with protest and think that's OK. To believe that you know best for them and to look for government legislation driven by trajedy caused by crazy people to push your ideas upon them.


Gun owners don't do these things. We are not seeking legislation to make it mandatory to own a firearm, or to discharge in suburban areas. Every bit of the legislation we seek has to do with wanting to continue our own sport and traditions. It wants to take nothing from any individual. The Liberals seek to take away rights. We fight to save them.

A change in Canadian law for firearms owners.

Taken from the Leader Post

"Refocusing our laws


By Russ Hillman, Leader-Post January 22, 2011 Gun control is one of the greatest failures of our time. The idea that a set of laws written against objects could prevent atrocities is childish. Any time a criminal can bypass the licensing, background check and registration portion of our laws by purchasing black market firearms, it nullifies the entire process.

The Mayerthorpe tragedy is a perfect example. Despite our many laws and bloated bureaucracy, Jim Rozcko got illegal firearms and killed four police officers. He had never had a licence or a background check; none of his firearms were registered. The system failed because the entire concept is a failure.

People with mental problems and prone to violence are too often undiagnosed or fail to take medications. No gun-control law or weapons prohibition can stop them from a murderous rampage or violent crimes.

We must stop the knee-jerk reactions of blaming objects and refocus on measures that are effective. Tougher sentencing of violent criminals and a reinvestment in our beleaguered mental-health system would be a good place to start

RUSS HILLMAN

Macnutt

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post "


When something tragic happens are humanity searches for answers. Often our common sense is blocked by feelings of loss and surprise. That common sense takes a back seat to finding the whys and hows of that tragedy. Even when we can put a name and face to the terrible event that took place such as Alberta's

Mayerthrope shootings, the Arizona shootings and Fort Hood. A name and a face of a mentally deranged murder are not good enough and we start to attack the tools involved, and the law abiding citizens that use those tools.

I did feel a sense of guilt after hearing about the Arizona's shooting. I have owned and shot a Glock 17 pistol, almost identical to the Glock 19 used by Jared Loughner. My guilt quickly subsided when the initial shock of those events wore off and I began thinking about what happened January 8th. It was not my fault, and not the fault of any law abiding gun enthusiast. The guilt became anger after we saw the cries from the United States Democratic party for strict gun control laws and high capacity magazine regulations. The media and Democratic party were trying to blame me, and others like me. News papers throughout Canada were criticizing American gun control like it was the firearms enthusiasts of the state of Arizona's fault, or Sarah Palin and the icons she used. Similarly in Canada after the Mayerthrope shootings it was the hunters fault, and their "high powered rifles."

We have to remind ourselves. With all of these messages of guilt for being a firearms owner bombared on us by liberal media. It is not our fault.

Murder is illegal, yet it didn't stop any of these tragedys from happening. The only one at fault for these shootings are the killers themselves.

There is no way to legislate against crime, be it on any level. From petty theft to mass murders, no form of legislation will end these crimes. Accusing firearms and the people that use them for sport, hunting, and carrying on tradition lacks in reason, common sense and what is good.

A simple fact no Liberals want to hear, gun control is getting old. Maybe our liberal minority leaders should find something else to get their sheep voters worked up about. Its getting tiresome showing them the same facts with the same results and no change in their feelings towards gun ownership.

Fortunatley our current Conervative government does see this, and they are making moves to change it. It started with a push to scrap the long gun registry and now Harper plans on ammending the laws and making it easier to preform a citizens arrest. If only introducing a Canada version of Castle law was also on the horizon for the Conservative party.

Whether castle law happens in Canada or not, it is clear that most of us are starting to realize controlling firearms does nothing to fight the ones that don't obey the laws. How does giving law abiding citizens, especially women the ability to fight those criminals on a even playing field (or one actually in favor of the victim) cause our us to be more unsafe?

Should we be allowed to use force to defend our homes?

Taken from news 1130

"VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - It is called the Castle Doctrine, as in "your home is your castle". Many US states legally allow the use of force in defending your home. Some high-profile cases north of the border have opened up debate over how much force should be allowed in Canada. The National Post lists some incidents, such as the man who started shooting when his house was being firebombed by masked men and another who shot a thief riding off on his ATV. There's also the shopkeeper in Toronto who tied up and held a repeat shoplifter. That kind of self defense often ends up in charges against the defender. There have been more calls for a Canadian version of the Castle Doctrine, but on the streets of Vancouver, not everyone's a fan. "No, I don't believe in guns or anything like that. Maybe I'm not prepared in this day and age because there is a lot of 'badness' going on, but definitely no weapons," says one man. Another says people can always call 911. "I mean, I don't see why they need a gun or a knife or anything." Canada does allow claims of self defence using force, within reason."

Most individuals in Canada who choose to defend their home from intrusion and theft in Canada are charged by the police and later the crown attorney. We all have the right and the human instinct to defend ourselves and loved ones from bodily harm, not as Canadians but as human beings. For most of us this is very simple. Unfortunately the liberal government wants your home invader, thief or rapists to be rehabilitated in our prison systems are re-released into society.

One of the most publicized news stories of a man being charged with defending his home happened right in my back yard.

Ian Tompson of Port Colborne, Ont. a former firearms instructor was charged with scaring away masked men trying to burn down his home with molitav cocktails. The tool he used to scare the arsonists away was a pistol. Ian Tompson went to his revolved, came outside and fired two warning shots in the air. No one was harmed and the masked men stopped trying to burn Ian Tompsons house down.

When the Niagara Regional police arrived at Mr.Tompsons home, they charged him multiple offenses including unsafe storage of a firearm. The crown has now recommended Ian Tompson go to jail for defending his home and his pets. The crown feels that Mr.Tompson should have stayed in his burning home while more firebombs were thrown and waited for the police to arrive.

For most of us its a very easy choice. For the Canadian courts and their stance on self defense not so much.

Taken from the Ottawa Citizen

"It is not quite accurate to say that everything I know about the differences between Americans and Canadians I learned while babysitting. But I did pick up some crucial information that, decades after my babysitting years in suburban Chicago, still offers perspective.

One experience has never left me. I thought about it earlier this month after a man opened fire on a political meeting at a Tucson supermarket.

I was looking after a young boy, the son of a family I had never babysat for before. At one point, he ran upstairs and returned with something to show me: a handgun.

Not only did having an easily accessible handgun in the house terrify me, but looking after a boy who was curious enough to drag it out to impress the new babysitter made me wonder how long it would be before he took a closer look, and whether he would survive his curiosity.

Having the gun in the house, no doubt, made his family feel safe. Why else would they have it by their bed? It made me feel the opposite. And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the prevalent views toward handguns in Canada versus the United States. It also explains why no amount of statistics will change minds that are set in their views.

There has been plenty of talk about the gun culture in the U.S. since the Tucson shootings (in which six people, including a nine-year-old girl, were killed and 13 others, including congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords were injured.).

We now know that Arizona is ground-zero for gun culture in the U.S., that it has some of the most lax gun regulations in the country, and that almost anyone can get a gun and can then carry it, concealed, almost anywhere.

Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, expressed the thinking behind that culture during an interview on CBC Radio. When his theory that the shooting would have turned out differently if someone else in the crowd had a Glock and could have stopped Loughner was questioned, he responded this way:

"We know that criminals go crazy, you send in people with guns to stop them. More guns, less crime. When the citizens are armed they are a deterrent to crime. When the citizens are disarmed, the criminals have no controls of any practical nature. And that's what we saw in that great tragedy."

But people in the crowd were, in fact, carrying guns that day. One man came around a corner, pointed his firearm at a man with a gun and told him to drop it. But that man was yet another bystander trying to take control of the situation with his own gun. Neither fired, but the two of them very nearly contributed to the carnage, rather than stopping it.

But this view that guns in the right hands make life safer and that gun ownership is such a fundamental right that it should only be denied in the most extreme of circumstance, finds support in tragedies such as the Tucson shooting. The more shootings there are, the more people like Korwin are convinced that more guns are needed.

The fact that statistics, studies and common sense say something else makes little difference to vocal anti-regulation gun advocates.

So it was with a sense of futility that, in the days after the shooting, I looked up a study written by three associate professors from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health comparing the U.S. and Canadian approaches to handgun regulation.

They noted that, at the time (2007) there were 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., and that 16 per cent of U.S. adults owned a handgun. In Canada, by contrast, there were about seven million firearms, about one million of them handguns. In 2004, nearly 30,000 people were killed by firearms in the U.S., while there are about 850 firearm deaths in Canada a year, most of them suicides.

The study found that more guns means more homicide, suicide and accidental firearms-related deaths, and that there are fewer guns in places with tougher gun laws. It seems so obvious that it hardly needs stating but it is not.

"Governments that implement restrictive gun laws may be viewed as paternalistic and lacking in deference to the wishes of law-abiding adults who perceive a need to own firearms for self-protection, or simply enjoy firearms," the report's authors write. So what is the ethical thing for governments to do? Restrict firearms, they conclude, for the same reason mandatory vaccine laws exist -- they make the community safer.

"Our analysis demonstrates that the Canadian approach to handgun regulation is an ethical one."

Most of us already knew that, but it is good to remember why.

Elizabeth Payne is a member of the Citizen's editorial board.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen"

I find it extremely insulting when reporters site "studys" that don't exist. Authors like Elizabeth Payne need to use this tactic to prove a point that is driven by the emotion of the author and disregard for actual fact.

When you look at homicide rates based on country's an obvious trend begins to emerge. The countrys with the highest level of gun control suffer from the highest rate of homicides.

International murder rates go as follows:

# 1	Colombia:	0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2	South Africa:	0.496008 per 1,000 people
# 3	Jamaica:	0.324196 per 1,000 people
# 4	Venezuela:	0.316138 per 1,000 people
# 5	Russia:	0.201534 per 1,000 people
# 6	Mexico:	0.130213 per 1,000 people
# 7	Estonia:	0.107277 per 1,000 people
# 8	Latvia:	0.10393 per 1,000 people
# 9	Lithuania:	0.102863 per 1,000 people
# 10	Belarus:	0.0983495 per 1,000 people
# 11	Ukraine:	0.094006 per 1,000 people
# 12	Papua New Guinea:	0.0838593 per 1,000 people
# 13	Kyrgyzstan:	0.0802565 per 1,000 people
# 14	Thailand:	0.0800798 per 1,000 people
# 15	Moldova:	0.0781145 per 1,000 people
# 16	Zimbabwe:	0.0749938 per 1,000 people
# 17	Seychelles:	0.0739025 per 1,000 people
# 18	Zambia:	0.070769 per 1,000 people
# 19	Costa Rica:	0.061006 per 1,000 people
# 20	Poland:	0.0562789 per 1,000 people

In all of these countries, citizens are restricted from owning firearms, or they are heavily regulated. When you look at countries that allow citizens to own or encourage use we can look at Switzerland. They allows there citizens to carry a firearm for the use of self defense, and it is common to have a modern evil black rifle hanging above the fire place. Switzerland is number #56 on the list. Canada is #44.

# 56

Switzerland:

0.00921351 per 1,000 people

# 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people

What study was Elizabeth Payne using to back up her statement that more legal responsible gun ownership is equal to more homicide? More importantly where did her fear of guns come from? Does she feel that shes not mature enough or mentally capable to own a firearm for self defense? If that's the case maybe her drivers licenses should be revoked. She also may not be capable of refraining from drinking and operating an automobile, or perhaps she just may drive off a bridge or swerve into on coming traffic. After all she can't distinguish between right and wrong and needs the government to take her license away before that happens.

A note on the Arizona shooting

Murder is against the law and it didn't stop Jared Lee Loughner from killing six people and injuring 14 others. What makes the liberals think he would have obeyed a magazine capacity limit. Maybe we should ban cars, after all it was the tool he used to bring him to the Arizona grocery store.

If only the liberal anti-gunners had enough respect for those killed and injured to let their wounds heal before they decide to "never let a good crisis go to waste" and further their agenda.

Harper dismisses radical moves on abortion, gun-control laws

Taken from the Globe and Mail

"Stephen Harper thinks capital punishment sometimes fits the crime, but he doesn’t plan to make it law if he’s elected with a majority. Canadians, he thinks, are comfortable with his government, even when they disagree with it, and he wants to reassure them he plans no radical moves.

In a season of speculation over a possible election, the Prime Minister says there will be no action on abortion or overhauls of gun-control laws beyond the scrapping of the long-gun registry if he wins a majority. When asked, in an interview with CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge, he said the country doesn’t want to bring the death penalty back.

“Well, I personally think there are times where capital punishment is appropriate,” Mr. Harper said. “But I’ve also committed that I’m not, you know, in the next Parliament, I’m not – no plans to bring that issue forward.”

The next election – whether this winter or later – could well turn on the question of whether Canadians will entrust Mr. Harper with a majority government.

In the past, it often appeared voters were uneasy about whether he might take more dramatic policy turns if his government had the freer hand of a majority. Mr. Harper said he’s heard the arguments about a “glass ceiling” on his support many times, but broke through it in opposition. He argued Canadians don’t fret about his Tories now.

“My own sense is Canadians have gotten comfortable with this government,” he said. “That doesn’t mean all Canadians agree with this government. Certainly many don’t. But I think most Canadians understand that we’re a government that is, whether they agree with us or not, reasonably confident, focused on real issues, on trying to make the country better, not trying to enrich or glorify ourselves.”

The Conservatives pre-election campaigning, too, focuses on mundane images of Mr. Harper as a steady hand in a stormy world – almost selling him as dull. And Mr. Harper insisted he has no radical changes planned on issues that have dogged past campaigns.

He describes abortion as an issue he’s spent his political career trying to “stay out of” and insists he wants no debate on abortion law. “What I say to people, if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you’ve got to change hearts and not laws,” he said.

On gun laws, he promises to scrap the gun registry – a Tory MP’s bill to do just that died in a vote last year – but not loosen other rules, such as licensing of gun owners or restricting handguns. “The core of our gun laws are supported by most gun owners,” he said.

Whether an election is triggered this winter depends on whether there is a showdown between the government and the other parties, and so far, the likeliest cause would be Liberal and NDP opposition to corporate tax cuts.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and other government figures will fan out next week to campaign for the corporate tax cuts – which were approved in a previous budget, and trim the taxes by 1.5 percentage points each year in 2011 and 2012. The opposition is portraying it as a gift to big firms such as banks, but Mr. Harper defended it as a job-creator.

“Raising our taxes will – you know, we can get some more revenue this year – but frankly it’s going to make this a less competitive country, a less good place to invest,” he said.

Stephen Harper thinks capital punishment sometimes fits the crime, but he doesn’t plan to make it law if he’s elected with a majority. Canadians, he thinks, are comfortable with his government, even when they disagree with it, and he wants to reassure them he plans no radical moves.

In a season of speculation over a possible election, the Prime Minister says there will be no action on abortion or overhauls of gun-control laws beyond the scrapping of the long-gun registry if he wins a majority. When asked, in an interview with CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge, he said the country doesn’t want to bring the death penalty back.

“Well, I personally think there are times where capital punishment is appropriate,” Mr. Harper said. “But I’ve also committed that I’m not, you know, in the next Parliament, I’m not – no plans to bring that issue forward.”

The next election – whether this winter or later – could well turn on the question of whether Canadians will entrust Mr. Harper with a majority government.

In the past, it often appeared voters were uneasy about whether he might take more dramatic policy turns if his government had the freer hand of a majority. Mr. Harper said he’s heard the arguments about a “glass ceiling” on his support many times, but broke through it in opposition. He argued Canadians don’t fret about his Tories now.

“My own sense is Canadians have gotten comfortable with this government,” he said. “That doesn’t mean all Canadians agree with this government. Certainly many don’t. But I think most Canadians understand that we’re a government that is, whether they agree with us or not, reasonably confident, focused on real issues, on trying to make the country better, not trying to enrich or glorify ourselves.”

The Conservatives pre-election campaigning, too, focuses on mundane images of Mr. Harper as a steady hand in a stormy world – almost selling him as dull. And Mr. Harper insisted he has no radical changes planned on issues that have dogged past campaigns.

He describes abortion as an issue he’s spent his political career trying to “stay out of” and insists he wants no debate on abortion law. “What I say to people, if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you’ve got to change hearts and not laws,” he said.

On gun laws, he promises to scrap the gun registry – a Tory MP’s bill to do just that died in a vote last year – but not loosen other rules, such as licensing of gun owners or restricting handguns. “The core of our gun laws are supported by most gun owners,” he said.

Whether an election is triggered this winter depends on whether there is a showdown between the government and the other parties, and so far, the likeliest cause would be Liberal and NDP opposition to corporate tax cuts.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and other government figures will fan out next week to campaign for the corporate tax cuts – which were approved in a previous budget, and trim the taxes by 1.5 percentage points each year in 2011 and 2012. The opposition is portraying it as a gift to big firms such as banks, but Mr. Harper defended it as a job-creator.

“Raising our taxes will – you know, we can get some more revenue this year – but frankly it’s going to make this a less competitive country, a less good place to invest,” he said. "


Harper is a smart guy. With a possible federal election and majority win for the conservatives, all in the wake of the Arizona shootings. Now is not the time to show your average sheep (misinformed citizen) that by voting conservative, your opening the floodgates for handguns and modern rifles (who will save the kittens.) With a possible and historic removal of the long gun registry its possible through a grass roots movement by firearms owners and passing of knowledge and facts, revealing the lies that come from anits such as Wendy Cukier. The average citizen (sheep) will grow to accept and become interested in hand guns for target shooting and one day the ability to legally defend oneself and their family.

On another plus side Wendy Cukiers book "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" now has a one star rating on Amazon. I won't hot link because I refuse to give her traffic be it good or bad, however it is easily found on Amazon. Feel free to stop by and tell her what you think of her book. While your at it, pick up something that is not fit for toilet paper and have a look at More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, a truly great read.