The Calgary Herald reckons it’s OK for the Canadian paper to get on their soapbox re: the Safeway massacre because a bunch of Canadians own property in Arizona. Some close to the scene of the crime. “Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed owns a residence not far away, as do many other Albertans.” Gotcha, although why the editorial board felt the need to justify their hectoring when the rest of the world just jumps right in is a question best left to anthropologists. Anyway, the paper’s got a recipe for what ails Arizona in the stop-the-nutter-with-the-high-cap-mag-fed-Glock arena. Speaking to that point, they point out that “Loughner only had to pass a quick background check at the gun counter of a sporting goods store.” In contrast . . .

In this country, that check would be performed by the RCMP and he would be subject to a 10-day-waiting period. He would also have to pass a comprehensive gun safety course. Spouses, present and former, would have to be notified, and references provided. His handgun would have to be registered. His large-capacity magazine, which held 30 rounds, would be illegal.

The powerful American gun lobby argues that criminals do not abide by such rules. This is true.

Yet one cannot deny that the hoops that one must go through in Canada to purchase even a hunting rifle, not to mention the more strict handgun requirements, deter those on the fringes of stability.

Can’t one? Is it illegal in Canada? And if you think that logic’s a bit tortuous, check out the Canadian’s coupe de grace:

The U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms. But it does not enshrine the right to have no gun laws, as in Arizona, home to Tombstone, site of the most famous gunfight in America, at the OK Corral in 1881.

As for the argument that a gun provides protection, it did little good for Giffords, a Glock owner herself, or for the other undoubtedly well-armed people at the mall.

If only.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

10 COMMENTS

  1. Oh, sure, Canada’s gun laws may have stopped Loughner, but they clearly do nothing to stop the French.

    That aside, other than maybe the “providing references” part, how would those laws have stopped him? A 10-day waiting period — who cares!? Do people think nutjobs who have apparently been mad and off-tilt for two years mind waiting 10 more days?

    I’ve wondered about the “references” needed if wanting a gun. If you live in a high-crime area because you have no family to help you, and you don’t talk to your neighbors or anyone because they’re all gangbangers, who are supposed to be your references? “Your employer,” I heard someone say. Ok, that’s one reference. Which assumes your boss likes you, and that if you have a job in an economy with “10%” unemployment. So, if I have no family, and I don’t talk to anyone because I live in a high-crime area, and I want a gun Because I live in a high-crime area, And I’m self-employed, who are supposed to be my references so I can have my constitutional rights?

    [insert joke here linking Canada’s banning of the Dire Straights’ song to gun rights.]
    [insert second joke here about them next banning “Blame Canada” and every rap song ever made ever.]

  2. Russia’s laws could have stopped Loughner, too. So what? This isn’t Russia, where you have to shoot an air gun for six years before you can be declined a license to own a rifle. And China’s laws would take care of that civility stuff in our national dialog. So what? This isn’t China, where criticism of the government lands you a lengthy prison sentence. Whenever anyone starts telling me how another country’s laws would do this or that, I really want to reach for my Smith & Wessons. All of them.

    • I can’t stand it either, Ralph. Canadians are so quick to jump on the ‘told-yah-so’ wagon. All the while, again and again, they seem to turn a blind eye to their own massacres and crime.

      They whine and bitch about America’s war zones, yet they start a war with Afghanistan because Bush made them feel bad for 9/11. Can you you say, ‘Sit, Boo Boo! Sit!’

  3. No law anywhere will stop a determined CRIMINAL from carrying out their evil intentions. Bans haven’t worked in the past, they won’t work now and they most surely will NEVER work in the future. History has proven this fact many times over.

    • If he was a real criminal, he would have made sure and used bombs like Eric Rudolph and William Ayers. This Loughner bozo was a loon and a druggie. Sen. Schumer just figured out that the Army never reported Loughner’s drug use to the FBI, and he wants to change the rules so, in the future, failing a preinduction physical because of drugs would lead to failing the Brady check.

    • it seems obvious that if these laws were passed, the b******s would buy an illegal gun from a criminal. Just like peple get illegal drugs.

      here is the basic story below :
      In August 1989, Lépine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate and he received his permit in mid-October.[36] On November 21, 1989, Lépine purchased a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle at a local sporting goods store.[48]

      a 25-year-old man from Montreal, Canada who murdered fourteen women and wounded ten women and four men[1] at the École Polytechnique, an engineering school affiliated with the Université de Montréal,

      • Montreal is one of my favorite cities, and I’ve visited many times over the last 40-something years. I remember the Lépine shooting very well, since I’d just returned from a trip to Montreal when the news broke. It seems to me that if wackos like Lépine and Loughner want to kill people, they’ll find a way.

  5. To the point made previously that determined criminals or crazies will always find a way, they’ll get a gun illegally if they really want one — that is exactly where I want them to have to get their guns. I, for one, would feel much better knowing Jared Loughner had been forced to purchase his gun illegally; also, we would be looking for or locking up more criminals right now and prosecuting them as accessories. Seems to me that is how it should be.
    Taken to it’s logical conclusion in the opposite direction, the argument sounds something like “criminals will always find a way, so we might as well let them buy their guns as easily as the rest of us.” Bull*%#t!
    Almost anyone, it seems, who knew Mr. Loughner, would have advised against selling him a gun. The bar was way too low for him.

Comments are closed.