Our minions sometimes overdo it in the zealousness…

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/778638–a-long-gun-claimed-life-of-opp-officer

____________________________________________________________

We would like to take a minute to correct the blatently obvious that was ignored and readers of the Star were mislead about.

The Registry DID NOT save Mr. Preston’s intended victim.

It was OPP Constable Pham who, in doing his sworn duty, gave his life while attempting to stop Mr. Preston from carrying out any harmful intent inflicted by his episode of mental derangement.

Our apologies to anyone that has been mislead by the above linked article into thinking the Registry actually played a part.

Our humblest gratitude for Cst Pham’s sacrifice for another human being.

Normally we don’t like to eat our own…but…

“…Classified as a long gun, the Mini-14 is capable of firing the same ammunition as the M-16 rifle used by NATO troops. The Mini-14 is regularly stocked at firearms stores in the Montreal area.

“If this legislation becomes reality you will be able to buy not one but 50 Ruger Mini-14s and no one will know you have them,” Cukier said. “Something like the RM-14 uses NATO-standard ammunition and…we saw the results at [École] Polytechnique.” …”

The above quote was contained in an article at the McGill Daily.

We feel duty-bound to correct the technical omissions in the interest of balance.

1. The 5.56mm cartridge is also referred to as .223 Remington.

2. The Ruger Mini-14 is a hunting rifle. Hunting rifles use a variety of calibres. .223 is one of them.

3. There is no such thing as an RM-14 rifle. That is claptrap intended to fearmonger. That is wrong.

4. The mini-14 can be stocked at any firearms dealer.

5. The mini-14 is not an “assault rifle”. “Assault rifle” is a bogus term used to mislead those who don’t have much interest or knowledge about firearms.

6. Prior to the Registry, under the FAC provisions in existence at the time, stores kept books of the sale of firearms. Someone knows who has the firearm and those records were required to be presented upon demand by a Peace Officer.

7.  NATO-standard. All that means is that the caliber is compatible for use with other firearms employed by NATO forces. A rifle in the German Army can use Canadian Army issued ammunition where our forces operate jointly.

We apologize if anyone reading that article was mislead by Mrs. Cukier’s statements and their printing by the McGill Daily without fact-checking her comments before publishing.

____________________________________________________________

Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Often. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.

People without licenses shooting guns in Canada. Safely. Educationally. For fun.

Photo: Sue Reeves

East Elgin Sportsmen’s Association held another successful Open House.

Canadian citizens got to try out firearms. Many to satisfy a curiosity. Some to educate their children. Some to get some practical exposure before pursuing a career as Peace Officers.

Well done Mr. Evers and the volunteers at East Elgin Sportsmens Association for responsibly promoting the shooting sports in Canada.

LONDON FREE PRESS

____________________________________________________________

Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Daily. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others

John Bowman and outlawing guns.

lewrockwell.com

When Guns Are Outlawed…Only Government Will Have Guns

 by John Bowman

Author R.J. Rummel has produced a significant body of work including numerous essays and several books that deal with the subject of democide, a term he coined to describe a widely-accepted legal definition of murder that applies when perpetrated by government upon its own people. After examining about 10,000 sources over many years, Rummel estimates that governments of the world have murdered (i.e., committed democide on) approximately 262 million people in the 20th century alone. That shocking figure is no joke and, as Rummel points out, is about 7 times higher than the combat death toll from all wars fought over the same period combined. 20th Century wars were the worst in man’s history and killed almost twice as many people as “ordinary” civilian criminal murders across the globe over the same one-hundred-year span. Yet, even though “the 20th century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars,” war was not the 20th Century’s biggest killer. Democide was. Or rather government was. And the comparison was not even close.

It should come as no surprise that the hallmark of democide according to Rummel is authoritarian government. It should also be no surprise that virtually every monstrous genocide or democide event in modern history was conducted by collectivist or socialist-style dictatorships, with the lion’s share of atrocity garnered by the Marxist variety – those great saints who do everything “for the good of the people” and who without any sense or shame hold offices and/or comprise significant political parties in most “civilized” nations today. In fact, the results of various flavors of socialism are what prompted other historians to invent the word “genocide” in the first place.

To put the 262 million murders in more conceptual terms, consider that if one takes a random walk through the entire set of murdered men, women, and children, more than 9 out of 10 murders across all times and all nations, were perpetrated, not by civilian criminals, but by criminal thugs operating under the auspice or directive of government to murder its own people, generally those who oppose the government or who oppose the politically well-connected or who own what the government covets for itself. If deaths due to war – what many currently believe is the greatest threat to life and limb – are included in the set, then still over 4 out of 5 violent deaths (83%) are the result of murder by the host government with the remaining 17% comprised by 11% war casualties and 6% civilian murder1. Yet, while totalitarianism, foreign invasion, and civilian crime – the primary historic threats to everyone’s safety – all arise for a vast array of reasons, there is, fortunately, at least one thing that is proven to prevent or mitigate all of these to a very high degree: widespread gun ownership by the civilian population.

Therefore, if one cares about one’s own personal safety or that for one’s children, family, and neighbors, then there is no substitute for a well-armed society. This is not rocket surgery. A well-armed society is a civil society. A well-armed society is also a serious deterrent to foreign invaders and modern technology such as satellites, planes, missiles, and tanks has not changed that. And finally, most importantly, a well-armed society has never yet, not once, been the helpless victim of democide to any significant degree, and it takes no great imaginative leap to understand why. When guns are outlawed, only government will have them, and look at their sorry record. The figure would be supremely monstrous and unacceptable if it were a mere 1 out of 100, yet more than 9 out of 10 murders committed on planet Earth were orchestrated by the victim’s own government. In fact, major events of democide unilaterally occur to people who are disarmed, usually (ludicrously) within months of disarmament of the population, which of course was promoted and ordered for their own good and safety, and often made possible by government-maintained registration or licensing records.

Today, we are continually bombarded with propaganda relating to the dangers of gun ownership. This propaganda shamelessly claims stiffer and stiffer gun control is necessary to “protect the children” or some other nonsense about personal safety. At the same time, depending on age range, children are more likely to die from drowning in their own toilet or bathtub, from falling off a ladder or heights, or from bee stings than they are from intentional or accidental death from a gun wound. And lest we forget, these same gun control advocates think nothing of putting their children in cars, which kills tens of thousands every year. Why? Because it is clear the great utility of vehicles justify the small yet deadly risks. Yet, wide proliferation of guns (with zero controls) also has great utility, namely prevention of the worst crimes in history as well as the run-o-the-mill variety. Furthermore, guns have a lower risk factor to law abiders than do cars, so where is all the clamoring from the “I-want-my-children-to-be-safe” crowd for bans on automobiles? There ain’t any because this brand of stupidity is emotional, not rational.

On the other hand, democide appears to expressly target children. Children whose parents if not unarmed would have long ago overthrown the tyrants who impoverish them to retain or regain their own property and means of feeding and rearing their children. That is why gun control advocates horrify me, especially those who are well-meaning and passionate about the issue. They genuinely believe removing guns from law abiders will solve social ills, while ignoring the consequences. To remove guns from the hands of law abiders is the tyrant’s dream, the criminal’s dream, the warmonger’s dream. And it is the law abider’s nightmare. To remove guns from the hands of law abiders unleashes every horror conceivable, and some that are inconceivable. And for what? To prevent some perceived threat that, even if realistic, is 5 or 6 orders of magnitude less likely to cause harm than the nightmare with a long and distinguished pedigree that may ensue if they get their wish?

It is as though gun control advocates seriously believe it is desirable to rip up the parachute, use the material to sew a windbreaker, then proudly proclaim they’ve prevented the skydiver from catching a cold on his trip down. It would be comical if not so deadly serious. To be fair, yes, many die from gun wounds. Yes, that is tragic and senseless. Without a doubt, guns can be quite dangerous, but the same can be said of cars. Of electricity. And even of love, a major player in crimes of passion and suicide, the latter of which takes more US lives every year than all reported gun violence and is in fact responsible for over 70% (higher in many other countries) of what is included in the gun-related death figures – a component that heavily skews these figures, yet is rarely considered by gun control advocates as if these suicides would not have occurred but for the availability of guns. Are there not consequences to banning any of these things: cars, electricity, love? Or of banning guns? Consequences that apparently go well beyond the narrow horizons and lack of historical knowledge of the typical ban advocate.

On the lighter side, one beauty of widespread gun ownership is that members of the adamant “I’ll-never-touch-the-things” crowd do not have to own one. They need only pray that their neighbors do, because those law abiding, gun-toting neighbors will protect them from the true heinous threats to their existence and livelihood, even if they are unwilling or unable to do so themselves or even oblivious to the dangers. And consider further, that the protection afforded by widespread gun ownership by law abiders can extend across national borders as well as neighborhoods. For example, while Canada does have a relatively significant number of guns, many Canadian gun enthusiasts have noted that much of their personal safety can be attributed to the fact that the populace of their closest neighbor maintains so many firearms.

As a final, more mundane thought, basically everyone knows or has heard that there is a correlation between gun control and crime. In fact, areas in the US with virtual gun bans, like DC, have not only the highest crime rates, but also a disproportionately higher amount of violent crime, whereas areas with few gun regulations tend to show much lower crime overall, with most of it of a non-violent nature such as property crime like theft, instead of violent crime like assault, rape, or murder. Gun advocates tout these statistics, while gun-grabbers are completely mystified and so go in search of some rationale to explain it away, or they focus on other issues, usually something like the safety of children.

I earnestly desire that everyone in the world becomes or remains a staunch advocate of widespread, unregulated gun ownership. There are few, if any, paradigms one could adopt to better ensure personal safety and peaceful pursuits. Such a paradigm would mitigate crime, reduce warfare, and, by far the most important, provide the ultimate backstop – when unalienable rights and Constitutions fail – against the most heinous danger all inhabitants of the world face: democide. It is neither a joke nor the subversive tripe you have come to expect from the phrase to say, support gun ownership! If not for yourself, do it for the children.

Note Please note, I understand this is a contentious subject, and mere statistics or numbers can never sum up these atrocities. Moreover, the figures I use are 35 million casualties of war in the 20th century and 20 million (probably too high) 20th century civilian-perpetrated murders worldwide, which appear to be widely accepted figures. Again, these are estimates, believed to be accurate, so please do not write me to suggest these figures are either too liberal or too conservative or otherwise incorrect unless any are off by one or two orders of magnitude or more because unless that is the case, it does not change in any way the thesis of this note – that widespread gun ownership by a civilian population will significantly improve the safety of said civilian population from every colossal threat, especially the most serious of all: democide.

 June 1, 2009 John Bowman  lives in Washington State.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

____________________________________________________

“…In fact, major events of democide unilaterally occur to people who are disarmed, usually (ludicrously) within months of disarmament of the population, which of course was promoted and ordered for their own good and safety, and often made possible by government-maintained registration or licensing records. …”

____________________________________________________

Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Daily. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.

We find ourselves in agreement…

…Somewhat with Mr. Elahi.

Canada should be more like Texas.

People accept personal responsibility and are shunning excessive government intrusion in their personal lives, their rights and freedoms and their individual intimate personal decisions regarding their lives.

Mr. Elahi might want to make a note about the Canadian constitution:

He is free to enter and LEAVE Canada.

If he feels so strongly about changing things and making Texas and example? We think he should go there.

On one condition.

He has to meet and tell Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp to her face what he thinks about the Luby Massacre.

VIDEO BEING REPLACED – STAND BY – DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SCOPES

If she’s brave enough to testify and remind United States Senators the reason the Second Amendment exists? Mr. Elahi won’t last but mere seconds.

 

A collection of writings by a one Mahmood Elahi

Posted on Mar 26, 2007, 7:57 PM

LETTERS: Gun owners respond to Mahmood Elahi’s gun control letter in

by nancy

 LETTERS: Gun owners respond to Mahmood Elahi’s gun control letter in Hill Times
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path/2007/march/26/letter6/&c=1
http://www.network54.com/Forum/33620/message/1174953559/The+Hill+Times,+March+26th,+2007

The Hill Times, March 26th, 2007
LETTERS

Gun owners respond to gun control letter in HT
Re: “To understand misuse of guns, look to Texas,” (Letters to the editor, p. 9, The Hill Times, March 19.). Instead of looking at the big picture, Mahmood Elahi uses extreme isolated events to provide proof for his claim.

Anyone can find anecdotal evidence to back up their assertions but to get a better idea of the impact that something has on society it is always more important to look at the big picture.

Jeff Gardiner
Waterloo, Ont.

* What does the action of one distressed Texan kid have to do with Canadian gun control? As far as I know, we are a very distinct society.

In the last 30 years, Canada has had more school shootings than Texas. Should we be learning something from this fact? Since we are talking about the U.S., maybe letter writer Mahmood Elahi could explain to us why U.S. cities such as Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago, which have the most stringent gun laws in the world are also the most violent cities in the U.S.? Maybe it is because criminals could not care less about our rules, regulations and social values.

Michel Trahan
Verdun, Que.

* Mahmood Elahi should do a better job of researching when he goes on one of his anti-gun tirades. When he says Texas is “the national capital of the gun culture,” he should have noted that the 2005 statistic for murder and non-negligent homicide was 6.2 (per 100,000 population), whereas the homicide rate in Washington, D.C. was 35.4.

What Mr. Elahi would never admit is how the presence of firearms actually contributes to a lower crime rate. There may be incidents of rare tragedies outlined in his letter (going back 13 years to find one), but vastly offset by the lives saved by law-abiding citizens using firearms for self-protection.

Getting back to relevance to Canada, legal gun ownership has never been a problem of crime or murder. Our murder rates have been steadily climbing over the last years since Bill C-68 and gun control was implemented in Canada. Given the choice of either having a gun control state/high murder rate like the city of Washington, D.C., or having the lower murder rate of Texas, I would choose the Lone Star state every time.

Lionel Trudel
Vancouver, B.C.

* Mahmood Elahi clearly displays his ignorance when it comes to violent crime and its relation to private firearms ownership. He leads readers to believe that Texas is a haven for violence and uses isolated incidents in order to make his point. However, when you look at the facts, this simply isn’t true.

Kyle Erhart
Winnipeg, Man.

* It’s clear letter-writer Mahmood Elahi is not properly informed about firearms, which may explain his irrational fear of them. We tend to fear the unknown and are quick to judge what we don’t understand.

Mr. Elahi is guilty of passing unfair judgment not only on firearms but on Texans as well. He states, when Texans like Juan Ramon get angry, they “start shooting.” Being of French Canadian heritage I would be offended if I was stereotyped as “a poutine eating lumberjack.” Unfortunately Mr. Elahi resorts to using stereotypes as a basis for his argument.

We have had a handgun registry in Canada since 1934, yet handgun crime is on the rise. Our long gun registry has cost close to $2-billion to date. The registry did not prevent a depressed and dangerous individual from shooting students at Dawson College.

Mr. Elahi fails to see the point that a gun cannot pull its own trigger. A gun is a tool, used for target shooting, hunting and to protect one’s life or the lives of others. The focus should not be on the tool, but on the individual.

Pierre Dupont
Oshawa, Ont.

* I find Mahmood Elahi’s letter regarding firearms ownership in Texas to be a quaint bit of propaganda at best.

Shawn Mulock
Calgary, Alta.

* It is inevitable that as long as there are unstable people willing to do harm to others, there will be murders of innocent people, regardless of whether these acts are performed through shootings, stabbings, bombings or beatings.

Dan Smith
London, Ont.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !

 __________________________________________________

This is an interesting find:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27668.html

Same letter as the Hill Times with a very interesting twist. It seems that John Lott himself may have replied to Mr. Elahi.

 

“…

AND it seems that John Lott HIMSELF replies to it. “…

John Lott replies: Steven Toby asks whether most murders involve individuals who are close to each other. His fear may stem from FBI statistics that indicate that about 50 percent of murders are committed by “acquaintances.” But that is a broad term; most of those murders involve drug buyers and pushers, gang members, and prostitutes.

The typical citizen does not become a murderer. About 90 percent of adult murderers already had a criminal record. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs who find it difficult to get along with others.

Also in regard to Mr. Toby’s question, in my book More Guns, Less Crime I find that murders among strangers as well as among acquaintances fall after the right-to-carry laws are adopted. Mr. Toby is surprised that concealed handgun laws deter crime since murder is “a failure of self-control.” However, just as higher arrest or conviction rates or longer prison sentences can deter criminals, allowing potential victims to defend themselves also appears to work. Surveys of criminals indicate that they avoid victims known to be armed.

Mahmood Elahi makes the common but nonetheless false claim that the areas with the highest gun ownership rates have the highest murder rates. There is no such positive correlation in the U.S. or other nations. The U.S. states with the highest gun ownership rates actually tend to have the lowest violent crime rates. More importantly, those states with the biggest relative increases in gun ownership have had the biggest drops in violent crime.

Mr. Elahi’s claim about Texas is wrong: In 1996, Texans owned guns at slightly below the national rate. Texas is a relative newcomer to concealed handgun laws, not enacting its law until 1996. It has both the highest permit fees and one of the longest training requirements. Despite this, Texas has seen crime rates fall.

Karl Black argues that I have been too tough on the NRA. This is true, in part; the NRA is the only organization large enough to effectively fight gun control. Yet, while informing its members about defensive gun uses is valuable, most Americans hear little about the defensive benefits. Arguing that gun laws are not being enforced is shortsighted because, unless you also point out the benefits of gun ownership, the response will be: “Let’s enforce the old laws and enact some new ones.”  

______________________________________________________

Mr. Elahi has other opinions on America as well.

http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/2002/october/Sa22598.htm

America the Unpopular Protector

 

Article # :	22598
Section :	EDITORIAL
Issue Date :	10 / 2002	396 Words
Author :	Mahmood Elahi Ottawa, Canada
To the Editor:                I am writing with reference to the editorial “September 11 and American Unpopularity in the Muslim World,” by Morton A. Kaplan [June 2002, p. 12]. Kaplan is absolutely right when he writes: “President Bush responded that we must work to improve our image among Muslims. On this occasion, he had it dead wrong. The proof of that is given by the figures from Kuwait. After the Iraqi attack, we saved Kuwait from destruction and conquest. … Yet even in Kuwait only 28 percent had a favorable image of the United States, while 41 percent had an unfavorable one.”                Even in France, a country liberated by America from the Nazi yoke, most Frenchmen have a negative image of the United States. This can only be explained by a deep-rooted inferiority complex shared by all these countries. They know they depend on America for their survival, and this helplessness breeds an antipathy toward their savior. Western Europe would have been overrun by the Soviet Union if the United States did not contain it by a powerful military presence.                Similarly, the Middle East would face a catastrophe if the United States decided to leave the region to itself. Any American withdrawal from the Middle East will be quickly followed by a new conquest of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. An easy conquest of Kuwait by Iraq would immediately threaten oil-rich but militarily weak Saudi Arabia and other nations.                This would inevitably add to the fear of Iran, which was a victim of Iraqi aggression before and would be tempted to strike against Iraq. Others would also join in. In short, most  (1995 of 2436 Characters) Read Full Article

___________________________________________________

Well, it seems that Mr. Elahi has shared his opinions concerning gun control in the past and has been rebuked.

Thank you Mr. Elahi for helping to make the argument against the Registry and onerous gun laws for the pro-gun side. 

___________________________________________________

Shoot Safely. Shoot Often. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.