Sunday, March 8, 2009

Enough with guns already

Paul J. Henderson
The Times

Friday, March 06, 2009

OK Chilliwack, this will not be popular, but in light of ongoing gunplay on the streets of the Lower Mainland I think it's time to say there is almost no reason for anyone other than the police and the military to have guns.

I say "almost" because there are certainly paramilitary organizations such as border services who need to have firearms. And a shotgun or rifle is important for those who work in the bush (myself included at one time) as defence from bears. Farmers and ranchers also clearly need guns at times.

But that's about it. I really don't see why anyone else should have any gun of any kind.

On Wednesday I was at a press conference at the Pacific Region Training Centre with a display of weapons seized from a Surrey couple who were also found with more than 1,500 armour-piercing rounds. What struck me was something said, I believe, by RCMP Superintendent Bill Ard: "There is no legitimate purpose for this ammunition."

An overstatement in the extreme. Because after the announcement, the media were escorted to the PRTC firing range where we were given a demonstration by Sgt. Robert Tan from the Lower Mainland Emergency Response Team. Tan fired his weapon at a dummy wrapped in body armour.

The reality was that Sgt. Tan was not shooting illegal armour-piercing bullets such as those seized. He was shooting perfectly legal .223-calibre shells from his police issue C7 rifle. A gun that is the Canadian equivalent of the well-known American M-16. And, more importantly, the equivalent of the commercial AR-15: a gun that is legal to own.

So why would anyone need the equivalent M16 in the city? Or in the suburbs? In the bush or in the country for that matter?

I suppose firing a gun as an extension of shooting a bow and arrow at a target is some sort of transposed primal urge, which comes from a species that has been hunting for longer than it has been farming. And there is nothing I respect more than someone who has the wherewithal and the inclination to get meat by killing it themselves.

So, there is clearly then a logic to the legality of hunting firearms, but many of the guns available from gun dealers--like the couple caught illegally importing high capacity assault rifle magazines and in possession of 1,500-plus armour-piercing rounds--have nothing to do with hunting.

(At least not anything other than hunting humans.)

I saw a bumper sticker the other day on a massive pickup truck driven by a stern looking fellow that said, "Keep Your Laws off my Guns." To that I say, "yikes."

Those who oppose any governmental interference into their gun ownership always overlook, or more likely willingly ignore, an important point: guns, when used as directed and intended, do nothing but kill.

Whenever I have suggested that almost no one should have guns, target shooting is brought up. To that I say try archery or badminton or knitting. Get a new hobby.

But the accidental and intentional killing of men, women and children by guns has to stop. The only way to stop it is to eliminate the gun culture perpetuated by Hollywood and those who like to shoot stuff for fun.

I don't see much difference between a Chilliwack gun collector who has an AR-15 and a gang member who wants his hands on armour-piercing bullets.

Both like to play with something that kills. Both will probably kill if pushed too far, and both own weapons that may unintentionally kill an innocent bystander. Enough already.
© Chilliwack Times 2009;

Mr Henderson says more about himself than about guns. But lets retire some untruths and myths first shall we? Firstly all rifle ammunition will penetrate police body armour. It is just not designed for it. Secondly Mr Henderson makes a big deal about the appearance of a rifle that people with the correct licence may buy and own. We are talking about the AR-15 rifle which resides in the restricted category. This means that it receives the same treatment as a handgun. It resembles a M-16 or C7 rifle











Look alike fire roughly the same size ammo. M16 5.56 mm AR15 .223 cal. but that is where the similarity ends. They both function differently
here is a video explaining the differences of Function semi automatic v full automatic

I hope this clears up any misconceptions. I dislike it when journalist sensationalizes something in order to try and sway public opinion. If one were to replace the stern pick up driving gun owner with the bumper sticker with black man in SUV we would call him a bigot! Now as for his comparisons of a gang member and a law abiding gun owner and the wish to own an AR 15 "I don't see much difference between a Chilliwack gun collector who has an AR-15 and a gang member who wants his hands on armour-piercing bullets.Both like to play with something that kills. Both will probably kill if pushed too far, and both own weapons that may unintentionally kill an innocent bystander. Enough already." In Psychology they call this Projection. When a person disowns their own thoughts because they are unthinkable or too disturbing too them, that they would even think this way they attach these thought to another person. This is how the mind copes with such thoughts that run contrary to our own morals or ethics. So what Mr Henderson is really saying is I don't see any difference between myself and a gang member I would like to own something that kills and use it to that end this kind of thinking would rattle anyone, no shame in that. So he "Projects" those thoughts onto a generic person in this case "A lawful gun owner". So I would hope Mr Henderson never is allowed to own any gun because he is truly dangerous. I would like to close with this last thought. "guns, when used as directed and intended, do nothing but kill." No this is not true a gun when used properly will hit the target you are aiming at, it is an effective means of preserving your life. The Gas Chamber, the Electric Chair, and the Hangmans Noose when used as directed do only one thing that is kill. And we all know that the aforementioned serve entirely different function in a Society.

1 comment:

  1. Mr. Henderson has offered the same tired anti-firearms rhetoric offered by his sort. No science. Just more emotion, fear mongering and propaganda. The anti-firearms folks have nothing else to offer. Why should we engineer our society to accommodate criminals and in the process deprive millions of their historic firearms culture? I find Henderson's comments to be offensive, ignorant to the nth degree and part of the problem. Politicians that promote bans expose themselves for what they are. Namely persons of limited intellect and will when it comes to formulating practical solutions for addressing violent urban crime. I am tired of these do nothings attacking a law abiding minority because said politicians have failed society by not suppressing the urban gangs and by not removing the socio-economic causes of urban crime. Perhaps Mr. Henderson should review the history of common law and the right to possess firearms, the cultural history of Canada and the concept of property rights in common law as well as the practice of the protection of minority rights as it pertains to our Bill of Rights and Constitution. I despair that such as he can be educated or convinced by argument as they live in denial of the realities and the science. If individual rights are of no importance then such thinkers should find a land where totalitarian ideals are more acceptable.