Why Firearms-Control Laws Are Despised

Proponents of “gun-control” laws frequently ask why anyone would oppose laws that “save children” etc. Well, here’s another example of what can go wrong with firearms licensing. A newspaper requested and received information on firearms licencees under “Freedom of Information” in USA and published the data about handgun licencees:“hundreds of residents were shocked to see their information posted without their being notified. Some said the map would prompt burglaries because thieves are now aware of where weapons might be found.”

see Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders – CNN.com.

Idiots! With idiots making such poor decisions is it any wonder I and many others take a dim view of firearms licensing? Need/want a handgun? Here’s a list of homes you can burgle/invade… Twits! That such a result can pass three layers of idiots shows it’s not paranoia. One layer of idiots passed the licensing regime. Another layer of idiots released the information about licensees and a third made it public. The idiots are out to get firearms owners. It’s not about saving children but putting firearms owners at risk/trouble.

Why on Earth does firearms licencees’ personal information become subject to Freedom of Information? Whatever happened to privacy? Stories like this will encourage the black market in firearms, the opposite of what the “gun-controllers” seek.

Other issues that trouble firearms-owners about “gun-control”:

  • it’s really “people-control” not gun-control,
  • it hobbles law-abiding people while criminals can ignore the law trivially,
  • it does not save any children, and
  • the cost is horrendous causing waste and expense for consumers, businesses and manufacturers, harming the economy.

The problem with criminal use of firearms is not firearms but criminals. Making good people into criminals by restricting ownership/use of firearms to the point where it is easier to violate the law than to obey it is irrational. Aren’t the prisons full enough with the wars in Afghanistan, on terror and on drugs? Why will another war make the world a better place? Please, stop this war on firearms-owners.

Let’s publish lists of people and addresses where other valuables are likely to be found:

  • diamonds,
  • gold,
  • art,
  • luxury cars, and
  • our children.

After all, if it saves one child, it’s worth the hassle. Right? Doesn’t everyone have the right to know what we’ve got?

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Why Firearms-Control Laws Are Despised

  1. bw wrote, “I would say that anyone in your family occupied with fighting Nazis in WWII was doing so with a firearm issued by the government and they were not required to bring their own weapon to the fray.”

    Actually the Canadian government did try to confiscate some firearms during WWII. I think the idea was either to prevent insurgency or to gather a stockpile in case the war came to our lands.

    The Canadian military enjoyed the knowledge brought to bear by aborigines and farm-boys who knew a bit about hunting. One of my father’s buddies used to go behind enemy lines and bring back prisoners with only a knife. My dad and his friends were careful not to demonstrate their marksmanship on tests lest they be put to work as snipers, considered murderers in those days and rarely imprisoned.

    The Canadian military used .303 British rifles heavily during WWII and the farm boys were familiar with rifles from WWI using that calibre. My father owned two, a Ross rifle, designed and built in Canada and a Lee-Enfield. So, while the Canadian military issued its own brands of rifles, the citizens were mostly familiar with very similar rifles used for hunting and pest control. 80% of Canadians lived on farms or in farming communities in those days. It’s quite different now.

    In most regions of Canada, in an emergency, ordinary folks can be conscripted for whatever purpose. Most often it’s for fire-fighting or flood-fighting but I doubt that police or military would hesitate to call upon Canadians to fight should a situation become sufficiently dire. The Canadian military is small and has an inadequate reserve force for anything bigger than a local event. The number of Canadians owning firearms greatly out-numbers the police and military here.

  2. bw says:

    If that is what you meant, then OK, the phrase is in those oaths. Of course such oaths are taken by, as you demonstrate, commissioned officers in the military and probably most elected officials such as senators, representatives, presidents, and the like. Numerically, such oath takers are certainly far less than 1% of the citizenry, though, and such upholding of the Constitution is generally thought to consist of simply not violating it. Nothing to do with guns, semi-automatic or not.

    Also, I would say that anyone in your family occupied with fighting Nazis in WWII was doing so with a firearm issued by the government and they were not required to bring their own weapon to the fray.

  3. bw wrote, “It occurs to me that the pledge of allegiance says nothing about enemies foreign or domestic, so that reference must be amiss.”

    I am not USAian. I meant the pledge officers take. Isn’t it called the pledge of allegiance?

  4. bw says:

    It occurs to me that the pledge of allegiance says nothing about enemies foreign or domestic, so that reference must be amiss. Further, the Constitution of the US provides for a specific way for those who wish to change the law to do so, i.e. vote. That has worked for more than 200 years now and is more worthy of support than the idea of a bunch of Walter Mittys with pretend M-16s wearing surplus store cami pants thinking they are defending liberty.

  5. THR wrote, “Pogson likes to talk big, but he has never defended freedom anywhere with a gun.”

    There is a lot more to defending freedom than firearms. My father and my uncle did use firearms to fight nazis. I could do such myself if I were 100 pounds lighter and quite a bit younger. I do defend freedom every day in this blog. I have written in other forums where freedom is not defended and bullies have their way.

    Examples where USAians protected themselves with firearms? Easy:

  6. Chilly Penguin wrote, “I think the US of A is pretty much safe from foreign invasions for the foreseeable future. “

    Read the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s about enemies foreign and domestic. With friends like people have in USA who needs enemies? Consider Al Qaida, the current popular nemesis. The USA has inflicted more damage to its economy responding to Al Qaida than 9/11. Then the body-count was a few thousand. Now more than 100K have been killed including thousands more USAians and Al Qaida is stronger than ever. So, I claim the USA damaged itself by providing targets and provocation for a decade, free advertising for Al Qaida. At the same time USA kills far more of its own citizens each year than Al Qaida has in its entire existence. The USA also has the highest proportion of citizens in prison of any country…

    So, USA is what it is and USAians fear themselves as much as anything. That’s why every time talk grows about banning whatever causes a run on retail establishments.

    About nukes… In 1940, when it cost $billions and thousands of people to build a nuke there were only a few computers on the planet. Now, anyone can design a nuke or a chemical bomb in a few days and it’s just a matter of time to obtain the necessary materials. e.g. When I was a young man, folks were worried that Iran/Iraq would get their hands on fast gas-fired discharge tubes for nukes… Technology has overtaken that matter severely. Knowledge is free and with the Internet there is no way to keep a monopoly on weaponry. This business about preventing Iran from centrifuging its way to bomb-grade fissile material is just silly. Iran can buy the stuff or make it a dozen different ways affordably. Uranium is everywhere. It’s just a matter of concentrating it and sorting the atoms by weight. The same goes for “conventional” explosives. Anyone who wants them can buy them or make them. Same for firearms. No law can prevent that.

  7. ChillyPenguin says:

    King George III?  Been dead a while, I heard.

    The British aren’t coming any more.  Who do you think *is*?  Cuba?  The Rooshans?  Can’t see it myself.  Nope, I think the US of A is pretty much safe from foreign invasions for the foreseeable future.  (That Red Dawn movie was fictional, FYI, and made precious little sense even in 1983.)

    Which leaves your own government. This has, it seems, the potential to go all “tyrannical” on you.  In which case, you’re going to do what about that, exactly?  You and a few hundred like-minded souls are going to take on the whole of the US military? Hmmm… I know you’ve got your Bushmasters, so you’re half way there already, but something tells me that it might a take a tad more than that: like some tanks, a few squadrons of F-16s and an aircraft carrier might come in handy.  Oh, and you wouldn’t by any chance happen to have access to nukes would you?

  8. THR says:

    Pogson likes to talk big, but he has never defended freedom anywhere with a gun. Just like the overwhelming majority of the US gun crazies. Can we please have some examples where people with privately owned guns have saved America from chaos in modern times?

    This is not Eric Flint’s 1632! Neither is there a plot out of any bad Chuck Norris film (so, all of them) afoot!

  9. Google translation: “Voluntary surrender of firearms increased by 60% the week before Christmas, ideal setting for dictators”

    Dictators actually don’t require that to get into power but they sure do like that for staying in power. That way they can be Jekyll and Hyde.

  10. eug says:

    Entrega voluntária de armas de fogo cresceu 60% na semana anterior ao Natal, cenário ideal para ditadores

    http://ucho.info/entrega-voluntaria-de-armas-de-fogo-cresceu-60-na-semana-anterior-ao-natal-cenario-ideal-para-ditadores

  11. Kevin Lynch wrote, “The second amendment in the constitution of the USA is there to allow firearms to be kept so that each state may have it’s own well maintained militia to protect against abusive governments. Not so that any yahoo can own semi-automatic rifles with clips that can hold enough ammo to wide out a school.”

    Militia: “In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
    [1913 Webster]“

    The “well regulated” part means well equipped.

    At the time that constitution was written, the USA had fresh memories of King George III looting and pillaging while not allowing representative government. That’s still relevant today and the states would have no rights at all if they could not raise a powerful army of irregulars at the drop of a hat. The premise is that private citizens will own the means of defence. Otherwise, the abusive government need only take out the armouries and have total control. At the time, most firearms were muzzle-loaders. Technology advances. The concept of armed citizens advances with it.

  12. Kevin Lynch says:

    This has to be one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen on-line on this subject so far.

    News papers and on-line blogs, professional or otherwise, publish all kinds of information all the time that can be abused. I mean we all might as well tell Wikileakes to shut down and stop divulging secretes.

    The second amendment in the constitution of the USA is there to allow firearms to be kept so that each state may have it’s own well maintained militia to protect against abusive governments. Not so that any yahoo can own semi-automatic rifles with clips that can hold enough ammo to wide out a school.

    The NRA has used the legal system to hijack the second amendment in the same way companies like Microsoft and Apple use lawyers to hijack the patent system and file software patents.

    If there’s bad legislation here then it’s the freedom of information laws that allows anybody to request and publish a list of privet citizens who own guns.

    Get a clue Pogson. When children start throwing stones in the playground we don’t arm all children and teachers with stones. We take the stones away from the kids who have them and make it clear this behaviour is unacceptable.

    There are over 3 million AR-15s in the USA. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. Why does anybody need such a weapon?

    Basically what you have there is a civilian army. The US administration has curtailed American freedoms more in the last decade than at any other time. Obama has prosecuted more whistle blowers than any other president in history.

    I don’t see any well formed militia rising up. So again what do Americans need such weapons for? It’s not home defence.

  13. dougman wrote, “I wouldn’t be surprised if the paper doesn’t get sued.”

    That’s reasonable but apparently the paper is not worried they did it before this time… Probably the courts will hold them blameless because the government provided the information. Perhaps the government should be sued. Where’s the ACLU when you need them?

  14. Yep. Drugs will do it… and it’s easier to blame guns than doctors.

  15. dougman says:

    “Every gun manufactured, transferred, and sold should be on the internet, all on one website, including date of purchase, current owner, stored location, and gun license number.”

    Registration doesn’t solve anything, nor does posting data on existing owners. I wouldn’t be surprised if the paper doesn’t get sued.

  16. glen says:

    What a load of fkn bullshit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>