Archive for the ‘Tid-Bits and Quotes’ Category

~~~

Got to go to the Ancaster Gun Show on Sunday.  It was nice to see so many gun nuts all together at the same place.  Lots of vendors, some nice pieces for sale.  I enjoyed talking to different people about the politics of gun control.  A good time was had by all.

 

~~~

This document came to me by way of the Canadian Firearms Digest mailing list.  It illustrates just what does (and what doesn’t) motivate the gun haters…

http://gallanteisen.incnf.org/Massacring-Norm-of-Armed-Citizenry_Apr_2011.PDF

“Massacring the Norm of an Armed Citizenry”

by Paul Gallant, Alan Chwick, and Joanne D. Eisen

Gun-prohibitionists know that the shock value of firearm-related mass murders can be used to their advantage. According to anti-gun Australian public health professor, Simon Chapman, sensational mass murders committed with firearms, like the recent Arizona shootings, can be “critically important to possible advances in gun control policies….” Chapman continued: “There is a great deal of advocacy that must take place before, immediately after and then well into the critical post-massacre period to ensure that community and political grief, outrage and anger translate into policy and law reform.”

In his 1998 book, Over Our Dead Bodies, Chapman laid out his ghoulish recipe for advancing civilian disarmament. And he was brazen enough to admit that we American gun-owners might view these exploitive attempts to capitalize on such events as a “vulture-like attitude to human tragedy, with advocates waiting patiently for…gun massacres so they might climb aboard community outrage and opportunistically capitalise on the misfortune of others.”

Add to this little tid-bit this quote from Josh Sugarmann’s book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988”; Josh was the head honcho of the Violence Policy Center and is still a big shot in gun hater circles:

“Assault weapons — just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms — are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”

A “study” titled Exploring the Links: Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities, funded by the Canadian Firearms Center (and reported on in my “RCMP Evaluation” postings) has this to say:

http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/Exploring the Links Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abu.pdf

Conclusion

The research findings help us to understand better the ways in which firearms may and do serve as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family violence situations. They show that the normalization of firearms in rural homes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island has lead to the minimization of firearms misuse generally, including desensitization to firearms abuse in instances where women, children and pets/farm animals are the victims.

 

This is what the Auditor General had to say in her 2002 Annual Report about the attitudes of some of the participants that designed the Firearms Registry from the start:

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html

“…excessive regulation had occurred because some of its Program partners believed that the use of firearms is in itself a “questionable activity” that required strong controls.”. This seems to be the belief that even the mere desire to own firearms is somehow aberrant behaviour that must be eradicated.

These are just a few examples of what makes gun haters tick, and the deceitful tactics they will use to force their anti-gun agenda on everyone else.  They aren’t interested in rational debate; they have no intention of stopping until all guns are eradicated from private citizens.

~~~

How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn’t see?

~~~

What we need is a 60’s-style counter-culture for rights, liberty and freedom…

~~~

I beg your indulgence while I catch up from my technical difficulties…

In the meantime, here’s a little tid-bit for those who say guns aren’t “Canadian”.

~~~

Arms in the Northwest

Trade muskets were around in fair numbers. Between 1689 and 1780, the Hudson’s Bay Company had sold roughly 20,000 guns out of York Factory alone (Ray, 74). It would appear that posts had muskets of various lengths in stock at most times. For example, in 1774, the Hudson’s Bay Company sent Samuel Hearne, then at Cumberland House, one 4-foot gun, two 3½-foot guns, and one 3′ 2″ gun (Tyrell, 112-113). In 1798, William Tomison ordered four cases of 3½-foot guns and four cases of 3-foot guns (thirty-two guns in total) from York Factory (Johnson, 177). In 1796, Peter Fidler sent twenty-eight 3-foot guns (as well as 96 assorted bayonets and a gross of knives), by horse, from Buckingham House to Edmonton House. Fidler also notes in a postscript to Tomison that ‘[repairs to] the gun locks etc. shall be done as soon as possible.’ (Johnson, 79, 79n). So, even from quite early, guns were available in fair numbers, right to the foot of the Rockies. You could buy a gun and all the required shooting supplies, even get your lock sent out for repairs, near modern Edmonton, Alberta. This was eight years before and 870 km (540 miles) farther west than from where Lewis & Clark set out from Fort Mandan to penetrate the wilderness of the American West— clearly the situation was quite different in Canada.

~~~

Johnson, Alice M. (ed.) Saskatchewan Journals and Correspondence : Edmonton House 1795-1800, Chesterfield House 1800-1802. Hudson’s Bay Record Society : London, 1967.

Ray, Arthur J. Indians in the Fur Trade. University of Toronto Press : Toronto, 1974.

Tyrrell, J. B. (ed.) Journals of Samuel Hearne and Philip Turnor. Reprint : Greenwood Press : New York, 1968. Originally published 1934.

 

~~~

From The Editorial Times:

“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. “Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.[2]“

That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

 

~~~

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
– John Diefenbaker (From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960)

~~~

 

 

 

 

~~~

ARE YOU A MENACE TO CRIMINALS?

If householders were required by law to own and know how to use revolvers, burglary would cease. It is an act of good citizenship to make crime dangerous – an encouragement of crime to remain defenseless.

– from an Iver Johnson revolver ad, circa 1904