Up until recently, guns had never been a huge issue for Canada. However, it is a growing concern. In Friday's paper it was reported that in BC, 2,349 guns have been stolen and 290 lost since 1999. And of these, only 99 have been recovered by police. More than 500 of these are prohibited weapons which can no longer be legally purchased in Canada. The Canadian government implemented a gun-registry to "tract" guns, but of course the registry does nothing to account for the 90% of guns used by gangs which are supposed smuggled into the country. Thus, since it's conception, much controversy has surrounded this registry. Watch 13 year old Katey's informative and humorous video below for further information.
5 comments:
A few years ago they found some of the confiscated guns from Los Angeles were being sold on the streets in Phoenix. It's to the point we can not trust anyone. Anyone you don't know, if that had to be said.
My mom's husband, Ron is a big time hunter. Until a few years ago every year he'd travel pretty much straight North of Wisconsin to the Arctic circle in search of the ever elusive carabou. ;)
He stopped hunting in Canada after 9/11 because they charge HUGE amounts of money to bring honest guns over the border.
I've been trying to think of a really constructive comment about guns. I just can't. Do they have any redeemable value.
Toby, yes, security has become an issue everywhere. But you raise a good point. Huge fees are charged for people who are going hunting and yet the real problem stems from those who smuggle guns illegally.
JBelle, indeed you are right. Guns have very little redeemable value. The issue here in Canada is more about trying to regulate honest, responsible people. We are being fed a line that the gun registry will protect us, but the reality is that criminals don't bother to register their guns. This registry has cost the tax payers huge amounts of money (over triple what was originally estimated). This money would have been better spent if used to stop the smuggling of these weapons into Canada, or targeted at stopping gang violence or something of the like. Instead, it's been used to create another layer of inefficient bureaucracy.
This topic can be discussed over and over; and can be addressed in so many different ways.
I'd be tempted to say that it is not the gun, but the way you use it, that makes it dangerous. But I have already won the "frivolities award" this month. Indeed it is exactly the use the problem, but the hidden assumption is that we can trust the user. Which we are not supposed to. That's why we should manage to contain the possible negative effects by limiting personal liberties in such a way that only some specific categories of citizen can own a gun. And even in this case we take a risk.
As much as we try, there is no perfect solution because there is no way to predict all the possibilities that something may go wrong. What we can do is a good risk management, restricting as much as possible the freedom to carry a weapon.
But as I said, this is only part of the problem. There are so many economical interest behind that a simple sociological explanation is not possible.
OK, I am boring you, I know it!
Good night and good luck. And thanks for the post.
Hi Fede, Yes, indeed, this is a topic which can be discussed over and over. Canada up to this point has not had a lot of gun violence. It is, however, growing in some urban areas and has become a concern. The real controversy though, has been that the gov't has tried to regulate gun usage through a registry. Now the Canadian public is no dummy, we all know that hard core criminals get their guns illegally and are not going to register them. So the gov't has created another layer of bureaucracy at huge cost to Canadian tax payers to track mainly hunters who are using their guns safely and have very few accidents. Most of the public feels that this money would have been better spent patrolling the borders to stop the smuggling of these weapons into the country in the first place. So that's the background to all this. But yes you are right, there are many economical interests behind this and a simple sociological explanation is not possible. Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment