I Missed.

Flipping around the dial this morning I came across a show that surprised me on Spike.  It's Conceal and Carry School, a handgun shooting show.  Given the controvsrsial nature of gun control in the US I'm surprised to see a reality style show about people learning to combat shoot.  Of course the fact that I've never seen an ad on Spike for the show may be telling.  They themselves may be a bit leery about the show getting too much attention and causing problems.  On the other hand they do have a webpage where you can watch full episodes.  Other channels have featured shows about weaponry but they're generally of a "Here's a so and so, watch it blow stuff up!" sort,  not "Here's private citizens learning how to shoot in a self defense scenario."  It also strikes me as a very American show.  And it's probably a better fit for Spike's "We're the macho network." subtext than it would be elsewhere.

Know Your Topic.

If you're going to advocate some controversial position you should know a great deal on the subject. Not doing so will get you in trouble. While trying to look up a pistol manufacturer on Google I stumbled across a pro-gun control blog called Gun Guys. Skimming through it I came across this piece about a young woman suing the careless hunter who shot her. The young woman was hit by a 7mm Magnum slug. That fact resulted in the following comment: He was shooting at a deer with a 7mm rifle? Did he expect there to be any of it left afterwards?

Apparently the writer didn't bother to do any research. The 7mm calibre is a common size for hunting deer. It's in roughly the same size range as the .30 calibre rounds that have long been a standard hunting calibre. The clown in question no doubt expected to find the majority of the deer to be where it fell after he shot it. All that making a statement like that does is allow one's opponents to point to it as an example of your general ignorance on the subject, and hence that your ideas shouldn't be taken seriously. And if there's anything that gun control foes are going to jump on it's anything that indicates an ignorance of firearms.

Guns and Cars.

With gun control once again in the news in Canada the thought came to mind of whether things would be different if a slight change was made to the concept. Treat guns like we do cars. After all you can own as many cars as you want without any sort of government involvement. It's only if you actually want to use them they get interested. So if you want a car sitting on your lawn to look at and maybe start the motor up on you're perfectly welcome to. But if you actually want to use it you need it both to be licenced and to have a valid operator's licence. Imagine guns were the same way. Want to have 2 dozen rifles in your basement? Go ahead. But if you want to actually shoot them you'll need them registered and you'll need a gun operator's permit. Hmmm, somehow I doubt it would prove any more popular than the current concept.

Many of the more hard core opponents of Canadian gun control are influenced by the situation south of the border and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. In a way it surprises me that the idea of a "well regulated militia" included in that amendment was never interpreted in a way to justify certain forms of firearms controls. It could be argued that part of the operation of such a militia is the government knowing the location of firearms and who owns them, on the basis that adult males are members of the militia unless they indicate otherwise. So registration of private arms could possibly be justified even if bans on certain types of firearms and restrictions on things like concealed carry couldn't. At least to the best of my knowledge it has never been interpreted in such a fashion.

This week's (so far) personal "DUH!" moment: hearing Creedence Cleaarwater Revival's "Who'll Stop The Rain" for the nth-hundred time and just realising that some of the lyrics are probably about Woodstock.

You just gotta love politicians when they get "creative." Canada's current gun control law saw the requirement to register "long arms" ie rifles and shotguns added several years ago. This pissed a lot of folks off. Within the last week someone within the federal government got the bright idea that maybe they should make such registration voluntary. Yeesh! If you're gonna do that you might as well throw the whole register long arms requirement out, because who will do it willingly? Either the provision stays in the law, or the government admits its not worth the bother and ends it. Half way measures won't work. All the voluntary registration proposal is is a lame way to try and please both advocates of the current situation and those who oppose it, but it won't do either.