Letter: Trio of responses missed point of guns letter

Editor: The three letters in response to my previous letter need a response.

Unfortunately, the writers seemed to have skipped over the second and third paragraphs, which said:  “Whether on the evening TV news or local radio talk shows, it seems that all are ready to condemn the Americans for their Second Amendment and their failure to get control of guns.”

The Canadian gun laws are so much superior, they opine.

The letter had nothing to do with the homicide rate or population.  It had to do with supposed effectiveness of Canada’s highly restrictive gun laws compared to the far less restrictive American gun laws.

The main argument — reiterated again just this week by President Obama —  is that gun control advocates want more restrictive gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a homicide.

Well, Canada already has those far more restrictive gun laws that Obama lusts for, yet the few Canadians who are deemed eligible to own guns use their guns in over six times the rate of homicides as do the Americans.

Or, could it be something else?  Maybe it is that the restricted Canadian guns are used six times more often in homicides because millions of Canadians have no equivalent way to protect themselves?

I would postulate that an American gun is far less likely to be used in a homicide because the bad guys never know which “good guy” Americans are also carrying a gun and can respond in kind.

Mr. Nielsen had the most thoughtful response:  “It isn’t the guns that are the problem; it is the attitude of the people. . .

But then, if we Canadians are so benevolent about guns, thinking only of sport and hunting, of what use are the heavy restrictions on Canadians having guns?

After all, Switzerland, where virtually every home is expected to have a firearm has a homicide rate only 41 per cent the rate of Canada’s homicide rate.

That would make the Swiss almost infinitely more benevolent than Canadians, where few homes are allowed to have a firearm — something I find hard to believe.

Once again, the question isn’t homicide to population rates, but the question is just how effective restrictive gun laws are.

If we are as benevolent as Mr. Nielsen suggests, why do we need them? If they are supposed to prevent homicides, why are Canadian guns used in homicides six times more frequently than Americans’ guns?

An analysis of five years worth of statistics collected by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number where the presence of a gun stops a serious crime — either violent or against property — from happening at about 67,740 times a year.

Paul M. Bowman

Aldergrove