08.09.2012 06:22 AM

A Worthington column that must be read

Ban assault weapons: that’s one of our leading conservatives saying that, folks.

15 Comments

  1. Jon Powers says:

    Also, it is a known fact that automatic assault rifles are next to useless in the face of zombie attacks.

  2. dave says:

    In September of 2001, I watched an American news channel showing me some fellows being rounded up by cops in Baltimore. Supposedly, it was part of the the security and safety reaction to the plane hi jackings and attacks on the trade towers. The news reader said that the cops were rounding up people who might be security risks. I looked at the fellows be bundled, hand cuffed, into the polics vans. I noticed the way that they were dressed. I said to myself, ‘Those guys are Sikhs. Those cops don’t know what they are doing.’
    So Worthington might be wrong about people mixing up Sikhs and Muslims.

  3. Philip says:

    It’s a smokescreen, Worthington is talking about an already restricted class of weapons in Canada. He doesn’t mention hand guns at all, which exist for one purpose only, to kill other human beings at close range. Stop selling hand guns at the retail level, no more restricted weapons licenses issued and no more aftermarket kits for restricted weapons. No more storage of existing hand guns and restricted weapons in private residences. Then we might be on the right track.

    Concurrently, step up federal and provincial border control measures and start tagging US retail gun manufacturers with some of the costs associated with gun crime in Canada.

  4. Ted H says:

    The continent is awash in guns, even the slugs in my garden know that but apparently no US politician of either party wants to take on the NRA who are a much worse threat to society than AlQaeda. They are a patently obstructionist and I would go as far as to say terrorist organization based on their corrosive effect on North American society, and I say that because they are the cause of all of the illegal guns in the US that find their way to Toronto streets.

    With due credit to Mr. Carville “Its the Guns stupid”.

  5. Jim Hanna says:

    Not that I’m in disagreement generally; but his argument is flawed; because of an attack which did not use automatic assault rifles, automatic assault rifles should be banned…which they are.

    Granted I am not 100% sure about every US State, but even there I think automatic weapons are banned.

    The problem I have with the term ” assault rifle” is its essentially meaningless; it amounts to banning weapons with pistol grips and flash suppressors.

    There is already a ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds in Canada; a ban on automatic weapons, a ban on short barrel lengths (so carbines..a ” carbine ban” makes sense, as it is easier definabley). These are all for the good; and I think the US would be better off with them as well. But as should be noted, the weapon Marc Lepine used is still legal and has been hard to ban, because it never had the ” scary features” that would have classified it as a n assault weapon; and that weapon has a legitimate use for farmers and ranchers etc. So banning an ” assualt rifle” and leaving its clone without pistol grip and flash suppressor (and bayonet lug, I forgot that one) unbanned is aesthetics.

    The two broad categories that really should be in this debate is whether we ban all semi-automatic weapons; and I am not sure I can get there, in a country where we do have a strict licensing regime on potential owners, and whether we also ban handguns. We already have so many restricitons on handguns, though; I am not sure a ban would really do much good, unless there is some data that legal handguns are getting stolen etc. But I am more open to that than the former. Full disclosure, if I did get a rifle, the only one that I have the remotest use for would be an AR-15; which would be classed as an assaullt rifle; but I really have better uses for my money.

    • Attack! says:

      but there’s another factor that cross-cuts both the semi/auto & hand/long gun distinctions that can & does make a big difference:

      whether to permit civilian sales of large-capacity clips/magazines

      which WE have done to pretty good effect, to contain the body count in mass shootings.

      Elliot Spitzer, the former Atty-Gen of NY, made a very sensible suggestion how the US President, big city Mayors (& presumably Governors) could achieve that WITHOUT a ban:

      simply exercise their considerable consumer clout to refuse to do business with any weapons manufacturer who DOES offer those items for sale (which endangers their populace & police):

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2012/08/07/gun_control_obama_and_bloomberg_could_limit_semi_automatics_by_using_government_purchasing_power_.html

      • Philip says:

        Hitting US gun manufacturers with the costs associated with crimes committed with their products should also be on the table. These corporations make a lot of money marketing things like, discount revolvers and automatics to people, it seems only fair that they pick up the costs of the carnage as well.

        • Bill says:

          Do you also want car manufacturers to pick up the cost associated with accidents aswell? How about when the tissue breaks, do you want the tissue company to come wipe my ass? Free world Philip, can’t control everything, what about personal responsibility? Crazy people will always exist, taking away guns will not change anything, it’s a nice talking point but placing responsibly on someone else will change nothing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*