That may have been the longest article title yet for this blog. But anyhow...
Tonight I just finished reading J. Neil Schulman's book, "Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns". What follows will be a very short review of the book with my perspectives and opinions on what I have read, in general (I don't want to get too specific, since that will just cause the length of this posting to spiral out of control, and I'm sure no one wants that). I read this book alongside another book (totally unrelated) titled "None of These Diseases - The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century" - more on this another time.
With a title like Stopping Power, my initial thought was that the book would talk at great length about defensive gun use, particularly in the type of firearm and ammunition that it would take to incapacitate an attacker. I was sure that at some point, there would be references to ballistic jelly and bullet expansion, wound channels, what calibre or shot size ammo to use, etc. I thought it would discuss some of the legal ramifications of defensive firearm use and provide real-life scenarios to buttress all the points.
I was wrong on all counts, and it stemmed from my faulty understanding of the title of the book and the subsequent assumptions that I made as a result. The book does not discuss the specifics of ballistic stopping power or anything like that; rather, the reference Stopping Power, refers instead to the curbing of government abuse of powers and limiting liberties and natural rights. It was a bit of a bummer, since I had thought that the book was something else. But I digress...
Schulman, a self-proclaimed libertarian anarchist, spent a large portion of the book railing against perceived government interference in infringing the right for an individual to bear arms. He tackles a variety of topics related to this, and if nothing else, it kept the book fairly interesting, since it didn't get bogged down on legal or philosophical arguments (which I can take, but that's not why I bought the book). He does a good job in providing responses to many common arguments for gun control.
The highlight of the book for me was when he listed his correspondence with Gary Kleck, who many pro-gun writers seemingly quote regarding his assertion that there are an estimated 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use per year. Be that as it may, I have always wondered how that estimate was derived - many books quote the number without explaining how Kleck got to that number. To Schulman's credit, that is discussed in length. To date, it's the only book I've seen that has addressed the numbers behind the number. It's also helpful that Schulman pointed out that Kleck is a lifelong Democrat, is a member of many Democratic organizations, and is for gun control, so it's not like he was a puppet for the NRA or something. Kudos to Kleck for having some journalistic integrity by reporting on something as the facts, even if the conclusion flies against his personal view.
I also liked how Schulman had the second amendment broken down word for word and line by line by well known English professors and linguists. That chapter was helpful in shedding light on the wording of the second amendment, wording which has been used by both sides of the debate to try to buttress their own points.
But that is where the positives end, for me anyway. Since the early parts of the book, I simply could not get past the fact that most of the book is simply a collection of his previous writings, all meshed together in such a way that the flow of continuity is not there. You can really tell that he wrote the various articles at various times, since there is just not that singular sense of fluidity in the book. While it was a collection of topics presented, the cut and pasting of various articles and correspondence made for a very choppy read, which is probably why it took me so long to get through the book. I just find it a bit of a turn-off to see that he just cut and paste various writings he did previously (the audience for these were all different). It's like if I cut and paste an email I wrote to someone and put it here - you would have a hard time getting past the fact that while I wrote it, it wasn't expressly written for this purpose (and my blog entries are written different than an email at work to someone, etc.)
I also found that he included cuts and pastes of internet correspondence and in some cases, letters he wrote to others but could not paste their response. To read a set of letters where he is the only one writing is difficult, since you can't really see how his target responded (you an discern somewhat from his response, but it's not the same). I've always had a bit of an issue with quoting anything from the internet, in a "real book". In his case, he was quoting messages from chat sites and bulletin boards. I think I would have preferred seeing him collect up all this information and then disseminate it all at once in a way that is easier to follow.
Schulman, while pro-gun, reveals that he is left-wing on many other issues (ie. he is pro-choice and pro-gay). That is his opinion, but he goes out of his way to emphasize that, as if he considered it a badge of honour.
Overall, I'd give the book a B-. The content is OK, albeit a bit scatterbrained. I agree with most of what he is saying, but I think that the vehicle or delivery method/presentation could have been greatly improved. I bought his other book "Self-Control, Not Gun Control" and hope that it is structured a little bit better than this one.
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Firearms For Home Defence Not Really An Option in Canada
I very recently went to the local gunshop to pick up a Savage Arms .22 bolt-action rimfire target rifle (Father's Day present to myself), and ended up having a very informative discussion with a friend in the gunshop, with whom I deal a lot for my purchases. Home defence with firearms is a relatively taboo subject in Canada, given our legislated safe storage laws here, and it's really incredible how many people here who own firearms are mum when it comes to talking about home defence. A very different contrast, compared to our neighbours to the south, who, for the most part, can lean on second amendment rights in their constitution in order to defend their right to use firearms for home defence.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thoughts on The Virginia Tech Massacre (4/16/2007)
For the past week, I've been watching coverage of the Virginia Tech Massacre. So sad to see these things happen, and so many promising individuals having their lives snuffed short. I am absolutely astonished at the amount of talented individuals who were in the right place at the wrong time. I was watching CNN on Tuesday night and they brought on one of the parents' and brother of one of the victims (Reema Samaha), and I was sitting there thinking, "How they must be hurting right now - their daughter and sister were killed just yesterday." My heart goes out to all the families who lost their loved ones.
Since I've had a week to digest all the news coverage, both in print, radio and TV, and have had some time to reflect on this whole tragedy, several interesting things come to mind.
One is that people seem to keep thinking that guns are the problem. I am not so sure of this. I think a gun in the hands of a mentally unstable person is the problem, no different than a knife in the hands of an mentally unstable person is a problem. I don't think banning guns is the answer here, since bad guys will always have guns or access to guns, whether legally or illegally. I read that the Virginia Tech campus had a zero-gun tolerance rule that resulted in expulsion. Despite this, a lone deranged gunman still got onto the school grounds with a gun and killed so many people. I wonder had some teachers, security, etc. of the campus had guns, whether they would have reduced the amount of casualties. I just read last night about a former Miss USA who is in her 70s or 80s who avoided being robbed because she packed heat. No one was hurt but she didn't fall victim. If bad guys have access to guns, I'm certainly hoping that some good guys will have guns as well. Banning guns outright is not sensible, since they will exist anyway, despite whether they are easy to get or not.
All that being said, I am shocked at how easily the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, was able to acquire a gun and ammo. In Canada, in order to possess a firearm, you have to pass a course, fill in an application for a gun license, pay a fee and they do a background check on you. As part of the application, if you are married, your spouse has to sign off on you getting the gun. This is more than reasonable in order to deter unstable types from buying guns, but the problem is, most gun crimes are not committed by law abiding gun owners. So why penalize the recreational shooters and the hunters? Also, in Canada, the guns and ammo are locked away in gunstores (even getting an under 500FPS airgun or airgun ammo, which does not require a Possession and Acqusition Licence (PAL)) requires ID, and they careful who buys the guns.
In this case, with Cho, they did a one minute background check - likely for criminal activity, but the problem here is that you can have mental problems and not be a criminal. While I don't favour banning guns, I think some sort of a psychiatric interview or exam with potential registrants may weed out people who probably shouldn't own a gun legally. By no means do I think this will eliminate all of the wackos out there, but it will at least make it harder. But then again, if they can't get a gun legally, they may just get a gun illegally.
My other comment on Cho is that he is a coward, pure and simple. OK, so he was picked on and people made fun of the way he talked, etc. I grew up in a small town with mostly Caucasians. I was bullied, I was the subject of racist jokes - but guess what? You don't hide in a corner and get all pissed off about everyone and start planning their executions. You show that you are stronger than they are - and also that people will grow up and do change. In fact, several people who were really bullies early on ended up being good friends in high school. But if you internalize it and play to the stereotypes, and then think everyone is against you, it's just going to destroy your mind. I read of how many people tried to approach Cho to engage him in conversation and dialogue and he refused. That is his problem and his decision, for which he cannot blame others.
I have a bit of a concern about how the media has been handling the release of Cho as the shooter. Notice the first detail they gave out is that he is an Asian male. Why is that of any significance? I'll tell you why - America still has a race problem, whether it's overt or not. I found it disturbing that they mentioned that detail, rather than a "23 year old male". It reminds me of the Oklahoma bombings and how initially, the first bit of detail released was that it was a middle east guy. It seems like the news wants to report this, in an effort to say, "whew, it wasn't a white guy." If it was a white shooter, would the media have reported that the suspect was a "Caucasian male"?
My final two comments are controversial ones, and one doesn't really have a lot to do with Virginia Tech, but it has been on my mind. After hearing the bad news last Monday (I was sick in bed, but listened to the radio when I woke up), on Tuesday I heard and saw every station giving the Virginia Tech Massacre front page coverage (and unfortunately giving Cho more coverage than he should have had), I also heard that there was yet another bomb blast in Baghdad, killing around 163 people. To North American news outlets, this was a peripheral news story. 163 people got killed by a suicide bomber. Yet it seems to me that the media doesn't care about these kinds of stories. I started wondering why and think I came up with a couple of reasons. 1) People in North America, no matter what they claim, don't care about the middle east? Why? I think it's because of this, "They are all islamic terrorists so let them just kill themselves off." The thought here seems to be people are more innocent and are more sadder victims to violent crime in North America than in the middle east. Yet, kids and innocent people are being killed everyday there. 2) Perhaps the North American people are just desensitized to how many of the same news stories about suicide bombers blowing up themselves and others are featured on the news every week between entertainment and sports. It's like something that's not worth batting a lash over. "People die in the middle east - so what? It's a part of life out there. " I think that kind of thinking has really made Westerners complacent and more self-centred than ever before. Don't get me wrong - I've thought that before when I scan the news channels, but it's like, I don't get it - people die in one part of the world and it's like old hat. People die in North America and it's 24X7 news.
I'm just saying that we need to be careful in not only viewing tragedies on this side of the pond as sad events. There are things going on in other parts of the world as well.
My second comment is in how, all of the sudden, the secular media and secular people in general, upon stumbling into these incidents, all the sudden invoke "prayer" as part of their reaction. I know George W. Bush is a born-again Christian, but I have seen CNN anchors and reporters and entertainers who are admittedly athiests or have no "religious affiliation" say "our thoughts and prayers are with you." Like, what the hell does this mean? You spend your time slamming God and the Bible in your reporting or entertainment, yet now you say you will pray to Him for these families. Please, people - do me a favour and don't be so hideously two-faced. I'd rather you just say that you offer your sympathies rather than sheepishly say you will pray for the person. I very seldom say this unless I actually mean it, and I'm a born again believer. The fact is, it is fashionable to pretend to care - by next week, you'll be back doing whatever you're doing. It's not different than Christmas and how people turn on this phony "Christmas spirit" crap, but when boxing day comes, they are in a parking lot giving their fellow bargainhunters the finger. Please don't insult Christians by saying you'll pray for people when 364 days a year, your actions show that you don't even acknowledge God's presence.
Now...back to wackos with guns - if you look at the Dawson College shooter from last year, he was into the goth scene but if you look at his vampire website, he is shown in not-all-that-different poses with guns as Cho. And that guy was a loner as well. I am starting to think loners should probably not have guns, at least legally.
Since I've had a week to digest all the news coverage, both in print, radio and TV, and have had some time to reflect on this whole tragedy, several interesting things come to mind.
One is that people seem to keep thinking that guns are the problem. I am not so sure of this. I think a gun in the hands of a mentally unstable person is the problem, no different than a knife in the hands of an mentally unstable person is a problem. I don't think banning guns is the answer here, since bad guys will always have guns or access to guns, whether legally or illegally. I read that the Virginia Tech campus had a zero-gun tolerance rule that resulted in expulsion. Despite this, a lone deranged gunman still got onto the school grounds with a gun and killed so many people. I wonder had some teachers, security, etc. of the campus had guns, whether they would have reduced the amount of casualties. I just read last night about a former Miss USA who is in her 70s or 80s who avoided being robbed because she packed heat. No one was hurt but she didn't fall victim. If bad guys have access to guns, I'm certainly hoping that some good guys will have guns as well. Banning guns outright is not sensible, since they will exist anyway, despite whether they are easy to get or not.
All that being said, I am shocked at how easily the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, was able to acquire a gun and ammo. In Canada, in order to possess a firearm, you have to pass a course, fill in an application for a gun license, pay a fee and they do a background check on you. As part of the application, if you are married, your spouse has to sign off on you getting the gun. This is more than reasonable in order to deter unstable types from buying guns, but the problem is, most gun crimes are not committed by law abiding gun owners. So why penalize the recreational shooters and the hunters? Also, in Canada, the guns and ammo are locked away in gunstores (even getting an under 500FPS airgun or airgun ammo, which does not require a Possession and Acqusition Licence (PAL)) requires ID, and they careful who buys the guns.
In this case, with Cho, they did a one minute background check - likely for criminal activity, but the problem here is that you can have mental problems and not be a criminal. While I don't favour banning guns, I think some sort of a psychiatric interview or exam with potential registrants may weed out people who probably shouldn't own a gun legally. By no means do I think this will eliminate all of the wackos out there, but it will at least make it harder. But then again, if they can't get a gun legally, they may just get a gun illegally.
My other comment on Cho is that he is a coward, pure and simple. OK, so he was picked on and people made fun of the way he talked, etc. I grew up in a small town with mostly Caucasians. I was bullied, I was the subject of racist jokes - but guess what? You don't hide in a corner and get all pissed off about everyone and start planning their executions. You show that you are stronger than they are - and also that people will grow up and do change. In fact, several people who were really bullies early on ended up being good friends in high school. But if you internalize it and play to the stereotypes, and then think everyone is against you, it's just going to destroy your mind. I read of how many people tried to approach Cho to engage him in conversation and dialogue and he refused. That is his problem and his decision, for which he cannot blame others.
I have a bit of a concern about how the media has been handling the release of Cho as the shooter. Notice the first detail they gave out is that he is an Asian male. Why is that of any significance? I'll tell you why - America still has a race problem, whether it's overt or not. I found it disturbing that they mentioned that detail, rather than a "23 year old male". It reminds me of the Oklahoma bombings and how initially, the first bit of detail released was that it was a middle east guy. It seems like the news wants to report this, in an effort to say, "whew, it wasn't a white guy." If it was a white shooter, would the media have reported that the suspect was a "Caucasian male"?
My final two comments are controversial ones, and one doesn't really have a lot to do with Virginia Tech, but it has been on my mind. After hearing the bad news last Monday (I was sick in bed, but listened to the radio when I woke up), on Tuesday I heard and saw every station giving the Virginia Tech Massacre front page coverage (and unfortunately giving Cho more coverage than he should have had), I also heard that there was yet another bomb blast in Baghdad, killing around 163 people. To North American news outlets, this was a peripheral news story. 163 people got killed by a suicide bomber. Yet it seems to me that the media doesn't care about these kinds of stories. I started wondering why and think I came up with a couple of reasons. 1) People in North America, no matter what they claim, don't care about the middle east? Why? I think it's because of this, "They are all islamic terrorists so let them just kill themselves off." The thought here seems to be people are more innocent and are more sadder victims to violent crime in North America than in the middle east. Yet, kids and innocent people are being killed everyday there. 2) Perhaps the North American people are just desensitized to how many of the same news stories about suicide bombers blowing up themselves and others are featured on the news every week between entertainment and sports. It's like something that's not worth batting a lash over. "People die in the middle east - so what? It's a part of life out there. " I think that kind of thinking has really made Westerners complacent and more self-centred than ever before. Don't get me wrong - I've thought that before when I scan the news channels, but it's like, I don't get it - people die in one part of the world and it's like old hat. People die in North America and it's 24X7 news.
I'm just saying that we need to be careful in not only viewing tragedies on this side of the pond as sad events. There are things going on in other parts of the world as well.
My second comment is in how, all of the sudden, the secular media and secular people in general, upon stumbling into these incidents, all the sudden invoke "prayer" as part of their reaction. I know George W. Bush is a born-again Christian, but I have seen CNN anchors and reporters and entertainers who are admittedly athiests or have no "religious affiliation" say "our thoughts and prayers are with you." Like, what the hell does this mean? You spend your time slamming God and the Bible in your reporting or entertainment, yet now you say you will pray to Him for these families. Please, people - do me a favour and don't be so hideously two-faced. I'd rather you just say that you offer your sympathies rather than sheepishly say you will pray for the person. I very seldom say this unless I actually mean it, and I'm a born again believer. The fact is, it is fashionable to pretend to care - by next week, you'll be back doing whatever you're doing. It's not different than Christmas and how people turn on this phony "Christmas spirit" crap, but when boxing day comes, they are in a parking lot giving their fellow bargainhunters the finger. Please don't insult Christians by saying you'll pray for people when 364 days a year, your actions show that you don't even acknowledge God's presence.
Now...back to wackos with guns - if you look at the Dawson College shooter from last year, he was into the goth scene but if you look at his vampire website, he is shown in not-all-that-different poses with guns as Cho. And that guy was a loner as well. I am starting to think loners should probably not have guns, at least legally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)