Sunday, September 17, 2006


"I don't think today is the day for a political discussion...."

I haven't had time to speak on the college shooting at Dawson College in Montreal earlier this week, but I gotta say that it is a terrible tragedy. My immediate reaction is to ask why this happened and how this happened. Apparently the gunman had several firearms registered in his name. Its very hard to make sense of why this happened but my head tells me that logically if this guy didn't have access to firearms, whether they be assault rifles or handguns, this would not have happened.
Whether you are liberal, conservative or whatever, we can all agree that assault rifles and hanguns don't serve any useful purpose in our society. The pro-gun lobby says, well we need guns to hunt for sport. Well you don't go hunting elk with an AK-47. And you don't hunt ducks with a Glock. Handguns are meant to be concealed and they serve one purpose, to kill other people. Conservatives say that they are hard on crime, but I think that is a joke because when asked about re-opening the gun control debate Mr. Harper said that it would e a knee jerk reaction, and that it isn't time to talk about gun control.
OK then, Mr. Prime Minister. I ask you: if when a crazed gunman storms a college classroom randomly shooting 20 innocent people and killing 1 young woman isn't an appropriate time to talk about gun control, than when is? Oh right I know the answer: when your party doesn't form the government. Because when Jane Creba was shot on boxing day in broad daylight on Yonge st. and you were the leader of the official opposition it seemed like a fine time to raise the gun control issue.
Gun control isn't a partisan issue. We all want to live in a safe society, where we don't have the live in fear. The best way to stop the killing is to keep guns out of peoples' hands.We need to analyze the gun control issue because safety of all Canadians is beneficial.

Here's another point that just came to me. People in the gun lobby always say 'well the majority of violent crime is perpetrated by the use of illegal guns, law abiding citizens should have the right to legally own guns to protect themselves.' Fair enough, but what if my neighbours, Mr. and Mrs Johnson are both law abiding citizens who legally own 3 hanguns and .22 calibre rifle. Lets say that they go away to Florida for a few weeks summer vacation and when they come back home, someone broke into their house, stealing their 70 inch plasma screen and also making off with their small arsenal of legally owned/registered guns that had safely stowed away in Mr. Johnson's study. Now you have legal guns in the hands of the wrong people.

If your wife was jogging alone. She would be less safe if she had a pistol?

If your home was broken into, could police rescue you faster than yourself with a firearm?

Or do you lack the self control to the point where if you were to hold a firearm, you could not stop yourself from shooting yourself or someone you love?

Think about it.
I think if my wife were jogging alone, it would be hard for her to pack a glock in the back of her spandex. Honestly, who goes jogging with a pistol in their fannypack?

I've lived in the same house for 18 years and its only been broken into myself. I had to break into my own house because I locked myself out.

I have enough self-control to not panic out of fear and resort to owning a handgun.

But back to the point of my post. Vimveer Gill (the Dawson gunman) didn't even have a handgun. He had a registered assault riffle. Give me one good reason why any civilian should be able to register an assault riffle.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?