Hey, look everybody. Bans!
From the Globe and Mail: [Ontario Premier Dalton] McGuinty calls for outright ban on handguns. The awful part here is the reader comments. The idiocy displayed in the Globe’s comment section, especially for contentious issues like gun control, is really approaching Speak You’re Branes quality. My favourites so far:
Thank the libbies for young offenders,when I was a kid there was the national anthem then the lords prayer,take out the prayer and you have an unconcious society of kids that dont believe they will ever be accountable,,,ya ya I know Im a christian wingnut and the bible is a fantasy,,,,,well snow white,, is a fantasy too and its not condemned in the schools,the best is if you ever read the bible read revelations,it speaks about all this ,not bad for a book that some say was just written by men 2000 years ago,,,,,,,God Bless
and
When I’m in the back woods, I carry my pistol for defence from bears, rabid animals, or anything else.
My god…imagine the fun when this gentleman actually encounters an angry bear in the woods and thinks a handgun is going to stop it. Unless he’s carrying a .50 caliber or he goes for strolls in the Hundred Acre Wood, he’s in trouble.
.:.
From the BBC: Uganda seeking miniskirt ban.
Uganda’s ethics and integrity minister says miniskirts should be banned – because women wearing them distract drivers and cause traffic accidents. Nsaba Buturo told journalists in Kampala that wearing a miniskirt was like to walking naked in the streets.
“What’s wrong with a miniskirt? You can cause an accident because some of our people are weak mentally,” he said.
Mental weakness? Hard to believe when one of your cabinet ministers shows that kind of stunning insight.
[tags]globe and mail, bbc, dalton mcguinty, handgun ban, uganda, miniskirt ban[/tags]
Skirl | Dan Dickinson 
A handgun is actually much more effective in defending yourself from an animal attack than a rifle. If you’re out in the woods and being attacked, it’s because the animal has surprised you (or more likely, you’ve surprised it). You can empty an entire clip from a handgun in the time it takes you to get the rifle off your back, and .45ACP more than enough stopping power to drop a bear at close range.
If you’re far enough away that a rifle is an effective weapon, odds are you can just sneak away. Rifles and shotguns are for hunting. Handguns are for self-defense.
I wasn’t questioning the convenience of it vs. a rifle, I was thinking more about stopping power. Unless it’s a kickass handgun I don’t think it’s going stop a charging bear.
I don’t have the time or wherewithal to look it up, but I’d be willing to bet $5 that statistically the guy’s more likely to accidentally shoot himself (or someone else) than he is to be attacked by a bear or a rabid animal.
This guy, yes, I’d agree.
Convenience is every bit as important as stopping power in terms of defense. A weapon that can’t be quickly brought to bear when you’re surprised is no use.
If you want to argue banning .22 or 9mm handguns, I’ll get onboard, because the only animals they’re useful for killing are bipedal. But there are some very valid reasons for carrying larger caliber handguns like a .45, .357 or .44 Magnum, which are all relatively common.
I’m curious about the “very valid” reason(s) you suggest. Example?
The reason is mainly for that I’ve already suggested–large caliber handguns are the most effective self-defense weapon for people in the bush. Hunters, recreational fishers, farmers, cottagers in remote areas, forestry workers, wildlife services workers, etc all might have valid self-defense needs that a long gun doesn’t properly address.
Here in the GTA we don’t see it, but a lot of parts of this country are still pretty wild. A country-wide, outright ban like McGuinty is calling for the feds to impose is short-sighted, particularly given that it’s not likely that such a ban would even make a difference in gun-related crime.
Handgun trafficking from the US is a much larger problem than stolen Canadian-owned handguns, but you never hear politicians making a fuss over that. They know that targeting that problem is setting themselves up for failure because the border is virtually impossible to secure.
Gun-related crime isn’t the root problem. If there is demand for handguns, there will be suppliers, ban or no ban. Treat the disease, not the symptom.
So while I don’t disagree with your scenario that people in remote parts of the country with dangerous animals nearby could find a handgun useful for self-defense, I have to ask two questions: 1) is there something else, something less lethal, one could carry in this scenario? 2) is the protection afforded in this scenario worth the lives which would probably be saved by a handgun ban?
I feel safe in saying that the answer to question #1 is “yes.” People in bear territory carry bear spray. You can make noise to scare animals off. Better yet, you can avoid areas where large bears (pretty much the only Canadian animal I’d worry about, apart from the odd cougar) are known to live. If you deliberately walk into an area frequented by Grizzlies, and act surprised when you see one and it doesn’t like you being there, then you’re an idiot. If you have a gun and shoot the bear, you’re a bully. And kind of a dick. If you’re in your back yard and a bear comes wandering in, a handgun is an asinine response. Call Lands & Forests. They know what they’re doing.
I’m pretty confident the answer to #2 is “no.” If you were to tally up the number of Canadians whose lives were saved each year because they used their handgun to ward off an attack by an angry animal in the wild, I’ve got $20 that says you could count it on one hand. But I’ll be generous and say it’s 10…10 people every year who’re alive because they had a handgun and killed the charging bear or moose or muskrat bent on their destruction. In 1995 (couldn’t find more recent stats for some reason…probably ’cause I’m tired and lazy) there were 88 Canadians killed with handguns. Even stripping away suicides, and assuming that a handgun would reduce the number of handguns in circulation by half, you’re still mathematically saving more people.
Your adherence to the notion of free & unfettered markets is admirable, but societies introduce controls all the time on things they deem destructive and best left to professionals…witness the fact that I’m not up to my eyeballs in assault rifles and U-235. I’m not sure what you mean by “treat the disease” though; until you figure out a way to remove the tendency for violence from the human psyche (and best of luck to you) I think the least you can do is try to keep the most lethal tools out of people’s hands. Despite whatever benign utility for handguns may exist in the world, I fail to see how any rational person could think that they do more good than harm.
Bear spray is very effective for most attacks, but it’s only one tool. It’s less effective against packs of animals such as coyotes, and there’s some evidence that it can be ineffective against rabid animals. Granted, rabies is relatively rare, but it can be a concern.
I’d suggest that the lack of assault rifles is more about a lack of demand than the fact that they’re banned. If there were significant groups of people that wanted assault rifles in this country, smugglers would be supplying them.
This recent article quotes the spokesperson for the Customs and Excise department that the 5400+ guns they confiscated over a 4 year period probably only constitutes 5% of the firearms coming into the country illegally.
The only argument for a handgun ban that convinces me is that it sends a message that the gun culture perpetuated in the US won’t be tolerated. The few handguns that actually get taken out of circulation by a handgun ban is a drop in the bucket, and a token gesture.
The “disease” I’m referring to is the perceived need that some feel to carry a handgun (as opposed to mace/knife/cell phone/martial arts/whatever) to walk around downtown Toronto. So long as there is demand, there will be supply.
If you want to go after the supply side, the solution is to pressure the US into eliminating handguns as well, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon.