What is it going to take for the National Firearms Association and their followers and other like-minded individuals to understand, that if no citizen was sold a gun no innocent citizen could be killed by one of their like-minded followers, who believed like them that every free person should be allowed to own any type of firearm they choose without restrictions and without the need to obtain permission from authorities. That this nut used a long gun to prove his point by gunning down members of the RCMP. That this group seems to believe that this proves their point about the in effectiveness of gun control and that all measures blocking the sale of certain firearms and requiring the registration of others should be dropped shows what is wrong with this groups thinking, which seems to be if you can’t stop all the murders with hands guns and long guns why try at all?
The National Firearms Association position seems to be that no matter how many police officers, children, men and women die in one instance at the hands of a murder wielding a semi automatic, or automatic long gun weapon there will always be thousands of long gun owners who have not broken the law and therefore any discussion entered into to limit or ban the use of any firearms, or any of the laws of Canada regarding firearms is unfair. Today we have a guy walking the streets of Dartmouth with a shotgun and everyone is on alert again and raises a question about the type of people who feel it is their right to own firearms to own firearms and feel that right out ways the lives of other innocent people. I suppose the NFA believes that it is the fault of the police that this guy has not been caught yet and if the police were doing a better job the innocent people of Dartmouth and its surrounding area would not be still feeling threatened by an idiot with a firearm, or perhaps the NFA will issue another angry letter of protest stating that this is yet another person who they deplore the actions of, while insisting that law-abiding gun owners shouldn’t be punished for his wrong doing with stiffer gun control laws?
Should a person have to commit to a full psychiatric examination geared to determine whether they could possibly kill a human being before they are issued a permit to own a fire arm? That might solve part of the problem, but I am sure the NFA would scream bloody murder and cry they are being discriminated against and what of the guns stolen from the homes of those other law-abiding hunters and target shooters they would still have a source of weapons with which they could draw on to commit crimes and use to kill unsuspecting innocent people? I ask these questions because we cannot say that individuals will commit a murder in the future, just by looking at them at the time they are buying a firearm and I do not believe that someone would sell a firearm to somebody they thought would go out and commit a murder in the future and yet these people have access to firearms. Like the guy who murdered the girls in École Polytechnique de Montréal, or the students in Dawson College, often they are using a firearm of a parent, or friend who has been negligent in insuring that the weapons were safely and securely stored, but I do know that if no one was allowed to own personal firearms that those unsuspecting, law-abiding, innocent students would be still alive today.
How many deaths have been caused by so-called responsible gun owners who leave their firearms and ammunition where their children, or thieves can get at them and use them to commit a crime ending in the death of an innocent person, or used to exact revenge on a school, or group of students, or a business and colleagues? How many more innocent people will the NFA ask to forfeit their lives so that they can hunt and target shoot? Maybe the original owner of the firearm should be held responsible for any crime that their firearm is used to commit and face the same penalty as the person committing the actual crime. I wonder after a few people were arrested for the murder that their firearm committed how many people would want to own their own personal firearm?
We never will be able to tell when a person will snap and lose sight of reality over the loss of a job, or being bullied for example and seek revenge, but what we do know is that if they do not have access to firearms they cannot take a life using one and I believe this out weighs the right or the need to hunt or target practice with your own weapon. Why if it is target practice you are looking to engage in could you not join a target shooting club and use firearms that are provided at the establishment that get handed back in at the end of sporting day. As for hunting well I believe that if you want to hunt there are many ways to do it, but if you are going to use a firearm is it necessary to use a combat weapon to bring down a deer and that could all be done through guides that supplied the weapons and were responsible for them.
In Canada there is no right to have a firearm to protect yourself period and end of story; that is what the police are for. Good people do bad things all of the time out of anger, frustration, or a misguided sense of doing justice. These people were not always bad, did not always have mental issues that were not detected and so fell through the cracks of health services; these people simply chose to kill someone in the easiest manner and with the choice of weapon that would do the most amount of damage available to them and the firearm just happens to fit that bill, whether that firearm is stolen from a so-called responsible firearm owner, bought at a store by the nut themselves, or borrowed, those who are unfortunate would see only the death and I do not think that the wives, parents and loved ones of those murdered would find much comfort in the fact in the knowing that this will keep happening, because those firearms will still be out there, because the right to hunt and target shoot, supersedes their right to live without fear of senseless death by a mass murder with a legal firearm.
I would seek the sensible balance and say that if every person is able to own a firearm then the law must be changed to hold firearms owners responsible for their weapons and all damage that those firearms may cause. I think that if the firearm that you insist on owning kills someone then you the owner should be charged with murder and suffer the same penalty under the law as the person who actually pulled the trigger. Perhaps this will teach firearms owners to take more care with how they store their weapons, or even discourage the stock piling of weapons and ammunition, but at any rate justice will be served. The Harper government played with the lives of all Canadians with the scrapping of the long gun registry to get the rural vote and we are starting to see the results of such political partisan tampering, as officers of the law, students and teachers in school and bosses and colleagues at jobs begin to die.
The NFA never said in their angry letter of protest whether or not Justin Bourque was a member of the NFA, or similar type of organization and they seemed to ignore his background altogether; it may just be the musings of my overly curious mind, but I do wonder why, or if they the NFA are hiding something they do not want us to know about this guy, or themselves as an organization?