I know I've promised my readers here an article on the undead menace (don't worry it's coming) but recent readings and conversations have sparked the necessity of this addendum to my recent article on gun control. Part of it has been from the peculiar American reaction to the idea of a registry and part has been to criticism on how I myself did the article.
First off, I do not blame the United States for gun crime in Canada, I am fully aware that criminals will get access to guns somehow if they are sincerely determined. I am also fully aware just how large the border between our two nations is and just how difficult policing that border is on a regular basis. To clarify, I lay the access of easily obtainable firearms that avoid registration and legal checks on gun merchants operating inside the United States who can (and do) sell firearms to people who are less than angels. That these firearms then find there way to murder scenes in my own country is no one's surprise. My criticism is that by avoiding any sort of national gun registry or system of background checks it is all to easy to for criminals to buy a weapon and then send it across the border to Canada or Mexico. My charge is that this lack of standards merely enable simpler access to firearms for criminals on both a national and an international level in North America.
Secondly I am aware of how controversial the title 'Gun Control' is. However, I do see it as more than a registration of who owns a fire arm and maintain that the system that would be put in place is one which would seek to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of certain individuals who have criminal backgrounds or those who suffer from a mental disorder. To say that this is trying to keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding citiznes is pure madness.
Thirdly I make no apologies for wishing to see the access to semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines limited. Nor do I apologize for wishing to see access to military equipment restricted. As I have said, there is no plausible reason that these weapons could be needed in the hands of the average civilian.
However, to counter points by both members of the right, and members of the revolutionary left I add this. There is no chance of a revolution in the First World at any point in the coneceivable future, and barring events of unprecedented cataclysm or political upheaval, there will not be any scenario where forming militia groups would be necessary. The governments of the First World may be outdated and prone to crony capitalism, but there is nothing which would prevent a concentrated effort of the people from dramatically upseting the political balance of any nation in the First World. There is no tyrannical agency that seeks to stop political change and stifle free press. The multifaceted nature of modern politics, information transfer, and ideas merely acts as a natural buffer to all but the most wealthy of idealogues.
I would go into points on the futility of a modern insurgency inside the First World and how the majority of us who inhabit it want no part in organized violence against state actors in our own nations or against our fellow citizens, but that may be for another time, perhaps never. The modern age provides many examples and assets for conducting a peaceful and non-violent revolution.
This my friends is hopefully my final word on the gun control issue for some time.