Chris Reid...Speak It, Bro.

So I was dropping my car off at the dealership last night, and happened to glance over at the Toronto Star (which essentially is the liberal metro paper in Toronto). I don't necessarily agree with everything the Star says, but I have always enjoyed the layout and the amount of information packed in the Star. It is by and large a better read (from a reading perspective) than the more conservative Toronto Sun, which even though it may share more of my socially conservative views, is in a more tabloid format with only grade-six vocabulary and enough ads to shake a stick at (I hate ads), not to mention one of the main drawing points, the "Sunshine Girl". My Dad reads the Sun, but I don't care for it at all. Anyway, since I was waiting for my shuttle, I thought I'd check out the latest Star. Right on the front page was an article about a local Toronto Conservative Party candidate, who has stepped down amid what the Star deems as "controversial" comments regarding concealed handgun carry. Now, the context, as the Star states, is that candidate Chris Reid has indicated in his blog, that Canadians should be able to conceal carry handguns for personal self-defence. What is wrong with that? Well, I suppose expressing an opinion in Toronto is a God-given right...only when that opinion is in step with the general liberal and left-wing mindset. To express anything else is to be met with a fury of politically correct outage.

I wrote Chris an encouraging response on his blog, showing my support. But more than that, I think this year has really shown me the clear liberal bias in almost every media outlet available. Never before have I see such a blatant unwillingness to reign in personal opinion and separate it from objective journalistic reporting. I suppose those who have seen Campbell Brown's CNN interview with Tucker Bounds will no doubt see this at its worst (if she ain't in the tank for Obama, I'll be happy to endorse my next paycheque to anyone who can prove otherwise). It's fine to have your own personal preference, but as a journalist, I think it's necessary to keep it in check and simply regurgitate the facts, and leave the op-ed stuff to the...well, op-ed people, and the talk show hosts, whose jobs it is to dissect these issues from a particular political bent.

Anyway, as I was reading the reporting on Chris Reid's views (Chris is gay, and whatever you or I may think of that, that's beside the issue, in my opinion - but I only mention it to show that I don't discount views necessarily because of who the speaker is), I couldn't help but think to myself that these gun control types really have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Today, I see the sad news item about yet another school shooting, this time in Finland. Multiple casualities were reported. Now, I know the media will once again go on its rampage, insisting the all guns be banned. I have already written a bit about all this, and will try not to rehash it, but if you are reading this and believe that banning guns is the solution, think for a moment about these points:

One, why is it that these public shootings always seem to be at a school, or a public shopping mall or a church or whatever? Because these places are either legislated or generally accepted to be gun-free zones. If I was a potential mass killer, where would I go to inflict the most carnage - at a shooting range or a gun show, or at a school or shopping centre? I would think twice about the shooting range or gun show, since I know that most people there would be armed and would not hesitate to take me down if I start threatening lives. Whereas at a school, you know that many of these educational institutions have a zero tolerance policy for guns and anything else that is not the flowerly "make love not war" or "tolerance" mantras that you have come to envision associated with these places. My son's school forbids even water pistols or army fatigues for kids (no one says anything to me when I wear my army pants and my Remington hat there). You know that the teachers, as good people as some of them may be, take orders from the school board, who generally are controlled by a liberal-bias government. For them, guns are bad, and they won't even engage in a healthy debate on this.

Remember last year, there was a rash of shootings in the U.S. in churches? What ended up happening? The gunman was eventually subdued through the timely assistance of a woman parishoner who happened to have a concealed carry licence and her firearm on hand. Had she not had her gun, there would have been mass carnage at that church and the gunman would have simply moved on to the next church.

Second, as I said before and I'll say it more briefly this time, gun control laws target the wrong people. I find it hard to believe that anyone can successfully argue that criminals will obey gun control laws, since by definition, criminals do not obey laws. Legislating a handgun ban would only hurt the legitimate gun owners, who are law abiding and have taken courses, passed rigorous written and practical examinations, have passed extensive background checks, and have paid the appropriate fees to be licensed. These are not exactly the types of folks who will put their reputation at risk in using their firearms unwisely. Instead, it is the criminal who has no intention to follow any laws, who will undoubtedly procure a stolen firearm (from the U.S. most likely) and use it to commit a crime. Banning handguns or firearms in general will not do anything here. Case in point - look at places like the U.K., who have banned guns for oh...more than a decade now. Guess what? Their crime has not gone down - in fact, it has gone up, but more than that, the kicker is that their gun crime has gone up by over 100%. Yet, supposedly there are no guns there. Same trend has happened in Australia. Even in the U.S. there are supposed "gun free zones" like Washington D.C. Yet, the the gun crime rate in Washington D.C. is at epidemic levels. What does that say about the effectiveness of legislating gun control laws?

Now, Mr. Reid's comments were based, as reported in the Star, on the horrific beheading incident on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this summer. Now, here's where Reid and my opinions will differ. I don't believe that having concealed handguns on that bus would have made a difference. Based on the tight quarters and the amount of people packed into those same quarters, it would have been difficult at best, and dangerous at worst, to take down a crazed assailant at the back of a bus, wielding a machete, who likely killed his victim pretty quickly, while scores of people are trying to exit the bus from back to front.

Do I support full concealed carry? Generally, yes, I do, and this is despite the fact that I do not own a handgun (but I am a firearm owner). I do believe in using firearms for self-defence for the home. Do I think that that guns will deter crime? I definitely do, and regardless of what your own personal views are on this one, I'd encourage you to at least examine John Lott's book, "More Guns Less Crime", which as an academic, economist and statistician, he takes the reader on a very long, detailed and comprehensive journey on crime stats as it relates to concealed carry laws, utilizing countless variables regressions, timeframes and geographies. It is published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'd encourage you to get the second edition, which has more current stats (which only buttress the original findings) and in which Lott responds to his critics convincingly. If after reading that book, you still believe that having concealed handguns will not deter crime, please shoot me an email and tell me why.