Wendy Cukier, a Ryerson University Professor and president for the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control has hit the nail on the head. She just doesn’t seem to realize it with her other statements.
“If you don’t have the resources and the knowledge to actually implement them, the won’t work, and we have seen evidence in recent years that the provisions that are in the law are simply not being applied.”
Wendy, you are soooo close! So close to that mental leap, that final step into understanding that law does not and cannot dictate behavior if someone does not voluntarily comply with its edicts and that enforcement of any law is a challenge that must be quantified in the law’s crafting. You’re so close to realizing that gun control doesn’t work on the threats you are trying to control… But you won’t get there.
Cukier praised Trudeau’s move to ban 1,500 firearms by name (including AR15.com) but said there were significant gaps and that there could be problems enforcing the law. Her solution to this sounds like making it even harder by giving Canadian Law Enforcement even more things to enforce unjustly on folks who haven’t harmed anyone.
Trudeau has stated Canadians have rightful need for things like hunting rifles and shotguns but not for weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Mr. Trudeau, you clearly have a knowledge gap that you are quite likely to refuse to correct as you have clearly never heard of HME.
This is a fundamental and willful misunderstanding of technology and the purpose of a firearm. There is no “safe” rifle or shotgun to be shot with. There autoloading and ergonomic firearms developed in the past century plus, starting during the WWI era, are all about as bad to be shot with is anything else.
The myth of the “reloading bad guy” is just that, a myth. Ammunition capacity limitations have never curbed casualty counts, look at Virginia Tech and University of Texas, that has always been dictated by the actions and counteractions of those directly involved in the incident.
I get it. I understand. You see no need for arms in private hand and do not have enough personal, social, and technological awareness to understand the glaring problems in plans like this but you are willing to praise them as “steps in the right direction” because they include the buzzwords ban and assault weapon.
It doesn’t matter how this gets done, or doesn’t because it cannot be effectively enforced, it had the buzzwords so it must be good. Like the SAFE Act in NY. Buzzwords = Good! Actual logistical practicality or encroachment on the free exercise of your citizens? Meh, don’t look too hard at that.
“Laws are only words on paper.”
Yes! Exactly correct! But your direct follow up to that statement is ‘more law’ will get the thing we want done, less homicide. Gaps in enforcement are always part of law. Inefficiencies are always a part of law. The law already prohibits killing, now it prohibits some methods of killing and leaves others untouched. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding or a willful deception of the public trust in promising these measures will work when you’ve already said, “Law are only words on paper.”
Gun controllers continue to be blissfully ignorant well meaning folks, or deliberately deceitful to leverage power. I am convinced most folks fall into the first category. I don’t think we have a large crop of power grabbers right now, they are waiting for the well meaning morons to do the hard work for them with that genuine misguided altruistic fervor. Then they, those who will leverage the power advantages put into place by the well meaning morons, will just slide into place and have the additional advantage of not being the ones who established the policy, it is just so convenient that it is there.
The ones fighting hardest against us out front do not understand. The ones quietly supporting behind them, do.