Severe firearms control
legislation is an idea that the federal Liberal Party imported from
Britain. Sold to gullible Canadian voters as a way of decreasing the
violent crime rates, it has now spectacularly increased our
violent crime rates. That should not have come as a surprise, because
it is what has happened in every country, world wide, where that idea
has actually been tried. Look at what it did to Britain.
Britain has gone through several cycles of:
- Violent
crime rates are increasing. We will stop that by imposing tougher and
tighter gun control laws.crime rates went up instead of down. - Violent crime rates are increasing. We will stop that by imposing tougher and tighter gun control laws.
- Violent crime rates went up instead of down.
- Violent crime rates are increasing. We will stop that by imposing tougher and tighter gun control laws...
By
1997, the British government had outlawed every privately owned handgun
in Britain. As a direct result of that, violent crime rates in Britain,
which had been very low before they started cycling this bad idea, had
climbed to the point where they exceeded U.S. violent crime rates in
every category. Handgun crime was at an all-time high--even though no
one could legally have one.
Now Paul Martin has announced that
he plans to do the same thing in Canada. That is a remarkably stupid
idea; severe gun control laws have been a flat failure at reducing
violent crime levels in Britain, Australia, Canada, and everywhere else
they have been tried. Instead, they have sharply increased violent crime rates!!
Why has this theory failed so disastrously to produce the desired effect?
First, severe firearms control laws are very good at disarming law-abiding victims.
Second, severe gun control laws are a total failure at disarming violent criminals.
Therefore,
all they do is provide every violent criminal with a guarantee of his
personal safety while he is attacking a law-abiding victim.
Why on earth would anyone ever expect that pattern to reduce violent crime rates? It is obviously going to increase violent crime rates. And it has--everywhere it has been tried. It is a very stupid idea that just does not work as advertised.
"But, but, but, they dry up the sources of illegal guns!"
Pull
the other leg. We all live in a smuggler's paradise. Those big
shiploads of containers sail in. They get offloaded. Under two per cent
of them get opened, let alone searched, by Customs. Therefore, over 98
per cent of the contraband in them--drugs, guns, any other illegal
import--gets through. That under two per cent loss rate is just a cost
of doing business. The requirements of fast and economical
international trade make it certain that that situation is not going to
change in the foreseeable future.
If there is a market for illegal guns, or anything else that is illegal, it will be supplied.
Anywhere in the world, because no one opens a container that is "just
passing through." It doesn't get opened until it reaches its
destination, unless the criminals divert a legitimate container into a
side road to remove a small to medium stash of contraband before
sending it on to the legitimate consignee.
There is no way, in today's world, to "dry up" the availability of illegal anything.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Paul Martin's government is being incredibly naive.
Please
note that we do not have a "gun crime" problem. The violent crime rates
for knife crime, club crime, and fist crime are also skyrocketing--in
Britain, Australia, and Canada. The British government now seems to be
trying to figure out how to outlaw knives without fouling up every
kitchen in the country.
The
Australians also fell for the simplistic idea that violent crime rates
could be lowered by severe gun control legislation. They are now
experiencing skyrocketing violent crime rates, just as we are here in
Canada.
Paul Martin's move
to confiscate all legally-owned handguns (but none of those in the
hands of violent criminals) is a red warning to all Canadians. The
recent re-registratin of all handguns was designed to "clean up" the
registry, which contained over 650,000 non-existent "ghost guns" and
"gone guns." It set the stage for Martin's confiscation of all the real
handguns that were in his defective registry.
We expect Paul
Martin's next move to be the confiscation of all legally-owned rifles
and shotguns. If that is not the plan of the federal Liberal Party, why
was the hyper-expensive registration of all legally-owned rifles and
shotguns done, starting in 1998?
Paul Martin's confiscation of all the handguns is, of course, going to increase our violent crime rates. That will be used as the excuse to confiscate all legally-owned rifles and shotguns.
The
federal Liberal Party MPs will, of course, claim that he has no such
intention--just as they claimed that they had no intention of
confiscating all legally owned handguns. It seems that the Liberals
cannot be believed or trusted where firearms are concerned.