doublegunshop.com - home Forums Is KING BROWN an Anti-Gunner?

I thought that perhaps Ed and a few others might read this to get a fuller understanding of the ridiculousness the anti gun team will go to. This commentary was written and published in today's National Post, one of two national newspapers in Canada. It deals with the efforts of a left wing politician, running for mayor of Toronto, to turn the upcoming election into a debate about banning guns, when guns are a federal jurisdiction. Cynical fear-mongering and politicking at it's best.

Ed, you sound like you have the same irrational fears the candidate has and your solution is remarkably similar. Too bad, as ably put forward in this column, that it would only serve to punish the law abiding while doing nothing to prevent gun crime.



THE NATIONAL POST - Matt Gurney: Exposing the silly math behind Chow's feel-good handgun ban

Olivia Chow, former federal NDP MP and now a candidate for mayor of Toronto, wants to reduce gun crime in the city. Fair enough. It�s hard to imagine that anyone wouldn�t. But one of the ways she wants to get there is a handgun ban, which, due to firearms law being a federal jurisdiction, would have to be nation-wide. And that�s a problem.

It�s helpful, before we continue, to consider the scope of the problem, and compare it to the scope of the proposed remedy. We�re blessed to have the numbers at hand to do both. The Toronto Police Service, as you�d expect, closely tracks gun violence within the City of Toronto. And the RCMP, which runs the Canadian Firearms Centre, similarly tracks information on firearms licences and the registered guns possessed by the licence holders.

So let�s look at those numbers. In 2013, there were 57 homicides in Toronto, of which 22 were committed with firearms. That was a pretty good year, but not really an exceptional one. In 2010, 32 people were murdered by guns in Toronto, out of 63 murders total. In 2011, it was 27 shootings out of 50 total murders. In 2012, 33 shootings out of 54 murders. Year to date trends for 2014 suggest that both murders, shooting incidents and fatal shootings are all coming in lower than in 2013 � murders quite remarkably so.

So the takeaway, roughly, is this: Fifty-some odd people are murdered in Toronto each year, and somewhere between a third and half of murders in Toronto involve a gun (not even necessarily a handgun, but any firearm � the Toronto police stats don�t differentiate). The average number of annual gun killings in the city, in recent years, is somewhere in the mid-20s. Again, that�s per year, or roughly two a month. Not bad in a city of 2.5 million.

While every murder is a tragedy, of course, that alone would suggest that there isn�t a gigantic problem with guns � handguns, rifles, shotguns � in Toronto. But something very interesting becomes clear when you look at the RCMP statistics for firearms ownership over the same period. Under Canadian law, handguns are classified as either restricted or prohibited (the definition is sadly inexact, as certain rifles and shotguns are also classed that way, but for simplicity, let�s assume that most prohibited and restricted guns are the handguns Ms. Chow wants to ban). Based on RCMP figures, the number of these firearms in Ontario has been climbing steadily since 2010. Indeed, using the stats compiled by the RCMP in March of 2010 and March of this year, we see, in Ontario, that there are 24% more of these restricted and prohibited firearms in the province. I own some of them myself, in fact.

The numbers are not broken down into geographical units smaller than provinces, so we�ll have to assume that the Toronto area broadly reflects the overall provincial trend. Interesting, no? Ownership of the deadliest firearms going up, sharply, since 2010 � and gun deaths in Toronto trending down to levels that are, again acknowledging the human toll of murder, positively paltry.

Forgive the barrage of numbers, but there is one further point that needs to be made. Ms. Chow, in announcing that she will call for a handgun ban to make Toronto a safer city, acknowledged that the vast majority of guns used in Toronto murders are smuggled in from the United States. Her campaign cites the figure of 70%. It�s probably higher, but fine. Let�s go with 70%.

In 2013, in a province where 284,559 restricted or prohibited guns were owned by law-abiding citizens, the number of gun killings in Toronto that could possibly be linked to these guns, using Ms. Chow�s own figure, was � 6.6.

And even that assumes that every one of those murders was committed using a handgun, instead of a rifle or shotgun, which we don�t know to be the case!

Seriously, people. In order to maybe, in some magical, unexplained way, prevent a maximum of 6.6 murders that, in 2013, could theoretically have been blamed on handgun ownership in Ontario, Ms. Chow thinks the 541,528 Ontarians licenced that year to own guns, who among them owned 284,559 prohibited and restricted firearms, should have to give them up. In case that somehow, through means that no one has yet been able to explain, helps prevent, at most, one murder every two months.

Does this sound like overkill to anyone?

It�s actually worse even than that. I�ve limited my examination of the numbers above to Ontario. Firearms regulation is a federal jurisdiction, and any attempt to ban something as easily transported as a handgun would logically require the ban to be national in scope (unless Ms. Chow intends to establish a Toronto Border Patrol at the 905 border �presumably an unarmed one). So in order to prevent the maximum 6.6 gun murders Toronto experienced in 2013 that could be linked to domestically-owned handguns, Ms. Chow wants to ban 1,967,657 Canadians, coast to coast to coast, from owning the 867,549 restricted or prohibited firearms they currently possess (those figures from March of this year).

It�s absurd. Stripping lawfully obtained and possessed property from law-abiding Canadians, who have already been carefully screened before receiving this firearms licence, is a tremendous infringement on their freedoms. It would be grossly disproportionate to the social issue it was intended to address. And it would be done without any reasonable expectation that it would materially address the problem of gun crime in our major cities, which despite public fears, remains very, very rare. If you don�t want to take my word for it, ask Toronto�s respected police chief, Bill Blair, who is on record saying that he feels that current laws are working and that a handgun ban is unnecessary.

In summary, a big city NDPer wants target shooters from Victoria to Halifax to give up their revolvers, not because it will actually save lives in Toronto, but because she knows many downtowners there have never owned a gun, don�t know anyone who does, and won�t care if they�re banned. It�s populist blather, not leadership. Toronto deserves better than what Ms. Chow is offering.[quote][/quote]

Dave, Dave,Dave, King Brown is just as deranged in his ideas about our Second Amendment now as he has always been. Of course there was no NRA at the time of the origin Bill Of Rights. What started as an organization to promote shooting and marksmanship morphed into preserving our rights as Liberals like King began to pick away at it and attempt to rewrite or eliminate it... just as they have perverted other rights away from Original Intent. Liberal politicians have attempted to redefine the 2nd, and Liberal judges have upheld their insane interpretations where they ignored Original Intent.

Despite Kings claims to the contrary, the Framers did indeed express that intent in writing in a multitude of places. They were unanimous in their feelings about an armed populace as a means to thwart unconstitutional power grabs by a large central government. The right to arms for self defense predated all that and was ordained by the God that athiest King is loathe to acknowledge.

It's not that King cannot understand that the Supreme Court finally defined what the 2nd is and has always been... it's just that Liberals think they can lie and wish it away by continuing to be in dishonest denial.

Oh yeah, I do not recall the Bible saying Jesus ever walked with dinosaurs, and the Old Testament does not mention them. Fundamentalists only take the literal version that the earth is 6000 or so years old. Maybe some say Adam and Eve had a dinosaur pet, but I think that was Fred Flintstone. More denigration of some religious folks who aren't hurting King Brown a bit. And more attempts to justify subverting our Second Amendment by a Canadian who should worry even half as much about the rights of gun owners in his own country.

King, that all seems rational until you consider that in every American jurisdiction that has passed conceal carry laws in the last 20 years, violent crime has gone down faster that demographics alone would have predicted. So there is a seriously plausible argument currently that suggests, in fact, gun ownership IS reducing homicides and other forms of violent crime. Acknowledging this fact might be useful as you marshal your arguments, whatever they may be.

Thank you CB ! Once again it is nice to know that there are some Canadians that understand that facts and static's trump rhetoric and ideology !
King I know your laws suck in Canada- I would never move there,in fact my neighbor just came back,less his car-it was stolen like countless others,I also know your do not want Americans to carry guns and only own sporting weapons.You have admitted many times you are a liberal-good for you at least there is no hiding,now admit your ideology and allegiance to the "worst president in 70 years" requires you to also support his antigun agenda.

here is were you take marching orders,and we know it,no amount of lulling will convince us to give up ANY of our rights-our inalienable rights to protect ourselves !

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm

Globalist Plan to Disarm America:

PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act /
State Department Publication No.7277

Thank you Keith for continuing to post and the battle (and ignoring Ed)You mention the framers and the second amendment.here is a great link;

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from �infringing� on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about �shall not be infringed.� (See Webster�s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment�s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to �a well-regulated militia.�The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense � to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase �well-regulated� means well-trained and disciplined � not �regulated� as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

If I'm not mistaken, the NRA was founded in the 1870's. They've recorded extensive chunks of American history and organized popular sporting events of that time. Maybe, pat 'em on the back for persistence and bending with the wind.

As for majorities, wants and whims there should be protections in the US against mob rule. Yes, the 2nd can be changed, but there is law to follow.

Well huh, poo on you. We used to have a long gun registry in the US and everyone knew it was bunk because it was too expensive. So, I back channeled and frontal assaulted, civil kumbaya'd, and slay that pointless registry. What's a public safety thing-a-ma-jig.

King,

Sometimes you never cease to amaze me, considering the background you portray on here.

Being a liberal negro supporter and minorities in general supporter, you must realize that if you took negroes and hispanics out of the equasion, there would be almost no homicide record to talk about......if you took negroes and hispanics out of our prison system, we could close over half of the prisons and still have vacancies. I would guess that in Ontario you could do the same.

The blacks in this country in Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, New Orleans, Newark, Los Angeles, New York City, Atlanta, Houston and other large ghetto comprised cities account for 90% of the homicides in this country, look it up. And all with illegal, primarily stolen guns. Blacks kill each other wholesale in this country "daily"........

Since you support these people over and over on this board and have such vast knowledge that we do not have access to, please explain why this is so, we would all like to know...?...

canvas: "Ed, you sound like you have the same irrational fears the candidate has and your solution is remarkably similar. Too bad, as ably put forward in this column, that it would only serve to punish the law abiding while doing nothing to prevent gun crime."

so, what do you perceive my solution to be?

pa: shame on you for bringing race into this...what a disappointment.